Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the chair]

MEMBER SWORN

The following member made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law.

John Pitcairn Mackintosh, Esquire, Berwick and East Lothian.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTITION

Price Code

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will make a statement on her future policy in respect to proposed alterations in the operation of the Price Code.

Mr. Channon: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what proposals she has for amending the Price Code.

Mr. Silvester: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection when she expects to publish proposals for the amendment of the Price Code.

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): A consultative document will be presented to Parliament tomorrow setting out the Government's proposals for amending the Price Code.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that that document takes account of the fact that in the April 1973 new earnings survey one-fifth of working men and two out of every three women were shown to be earning less than £25 a week, and that any price increases at all will affect this section of the community particularly adversely?

Mrs. Williams: I must ask my hon. Friend to await the various statements tomorrow which will, of course, have a bearing on the whole of the economy and on the matter which he has mentioned.

Mr. Silvester: While I recognise that the right hon. Lady cannot tell me what will be in her statement tomorrow, can she say whether she has accepted the principle that more damage will be done to consumers by the continued erosion of the margins of some food manufacturers, or will she accept some increase in the retail price?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will not seriously expect me to go into details of what will be said tomorrow.

Mr. Raison: While accepting the urgent need for revision of the Price Code, may I ask the Secretary of Stale to give an assurance that the House will have a proper chance to debate it in its draft form?

Mrs. Williams: I congratulate the hon. hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) on his first appearance, I think, in this rôle at the Box. I hope that he enjoys it. In reply to his question, there will be a full opportunity on two occasions to debate the revision of the Price Code—first in conjunction with the general Budget debate which has been agreed through the usual channels. Secondly any revisions to the Price Code are subject to an affirmative procedure and, therefore, the House will have a further opportunity to consider them in detail.

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, but surely the House needs a full, separate debate on the Price Code as well as the two opportunities which the right hon. Lady has described.

Mrs. Williams: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman fully appreciated what I said. That would, of course, take place on the affirmative order. If he wishes in addition to have a further debate on the matter—that is to say, a third one in a very short space of time—the hon. Member must consult his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Prices

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she is satisfied that the resources available to her Department are sufficient to protect the consumer against rising prices.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have never claimed that a single Department, or even Government, can wholly stem world inflation. Action already taken by my Department includes the food subsidy programme, the strengthening of the Price Code, a voluntary agreement with retail organisations and action against restrictive agreements in the service industries.

Mr. Tebbit: Without prejudging whether tomorrow's statement will constitute a strengthening of the Price Code, would not the right hon. Lady agree that, as she has no power at all over the prices of coal, steel, fares—particularly the GLC's exorbitant increases which are approaching—or over the rapacious demands of spendthrift Labour authorities, all of which are prices borne by the consumer, she really should perhaps quietly retire?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Price Code bites upon nationalised industry's prices. He also should be aware that the ludicrous policy which his own Government followed in respect of nationalised industry prices is one of the major reasons for the problems which the present Government face in that sector.

Mr. Emery: Can the right hon. Lady make clear exactly how much she intends to have spent on food subsidies by the end of this financial year? Does she think that that is adequate? How much more would she like?

Mrs. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to await the appropriate Question on the Order Paper, I think that that would only be polite to the hon. Gentleman who has put down the Question.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection by how much food prices rose in the United Kingdom between January 1973 and October 1974; and what proportion of this rise was attributable to British membership of the European Economic Community.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The further we get from the date of entry into the Community, the harder it is to calculate what food prices would have been if we had stayed out. The food price index rose by 29·2 per cent. between January 1973 and September 1974. Official estimates now show that food prices are, on balance very slightly lower than they would have been were we not members of the Community.

Mr. Hurd: I thank the right hon. Lady for that significant reply. Could she estimate roughly what the effect would be on


the price of bread and cereal products generally if we kicked ourselves out of the Community and had to pay the world price for all our imports?

Mrs. Williams: The price of wheat for bread in the Community is about one-third lower than in the world generally, though the hon. Gentleman will appreciate two points about that. One is that monetary compensatory amounts are payable now as a result of the last Agriculture Ministers' meeting on imports into this country, which rather distorts the price comparison. Second, he will be aware that the one is soft wheat, the continental wheat, and the other is hard wheat and, therefore, a direct comparison cannot be made. But, broadly speaking, it is true that cereals are now less expensive within the Community than outside it.

Mr. Rost: What will happen to food prices in this country if the Government do not soon do something to stop the slump in food production?

Mrs. Williams: This Government have already made substantial efforts to stop the slump in food production. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that one of the most crucial elements in this matter was the withdrawal of the guarantee by the Minister of Agriculture in the last Conservative administration.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will establish a freeze on prices of essential goods, particularly food and household goods, backed by law; and, if so, when and for what period this may apply.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): No, Sir. Costs have risen sharply in the past year—for example, imported food by 17 per cent. A freeze in these circumstances would lead only to serious shortages in the shops and to bankruptcies and would put jobs at risk.

Mr. Thorne: Does my hon. Friend agree that the highly mystical social contract will hardly become a reality on the basis of that sort of approach to the question of prices? Does he not further agree that if prices are to remain free, wages also must remain free?

Mr. Maclennan: My hon. Friend must know that there is no question of prices remaining free. The Price Code operates effectively to control prices. The three months' delay which the Government have already introduced in their first review of that code has had an effect in stabilising prices. With regard to my hon. Friend's remarks about the social contract, he must be aware that the Government are playing their part to make the social contract effective.

Mr. Silvester: Is not the hon. Gentleman a little concerned that his hon. Friend should relate the fulfilment of the social contract to a freeze which he himself admits would be quite impracticable?

Mr. Maclennan: I am never concerned about remarks made by my hon. Friend, whose advice is welcome.

Food Subsidies

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what plans she has for extending the range and increasing the magnitude of food subsidies; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that new subsidies on tea and flour were introduced in the parliamentary recess. I have no immediate plans for extending the food subsidies programme at present.

Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many hon. Members on this side of the House feel that additional subsidies have a useful distributive effect, so long as the money is found from taxing the wealthier sections of the community? In the circumstances which we face at present, would my right hon. Friend consider using her powers under the Prices Act 1974 to fix the price of sugar, even if it involves a subsidy in that direction?

Mrs. Williams: First, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) on recognising the basic truth that those in high income groups pay by taxation for food subsidies and those in low income groups get the full benefit. I only wish that the other side of the House appreciated that as well.
With regard to what my hon. Friend has said about sugar, I am sure he will understand that discussions are now taking place on the question of future supplies, and any decision about a subsidy will have to await information on the supply position in greater detail.

Sir John Hall: Is the Minister aware that consumption of several of the subsidised foodstuffs is increasing very rapidly indeed? Can she afford this open-ended subsidy regardless of consumption? Will she not, therefore, have to introduce some form of restriction on the amount of any particular subsidised foodstuff available to the public?

Mrs. Williams: I think the hon. Gentleman will have seen the same study that I have seen—the Ministry of Agriculture's survey reported in today's Daily Telegraph. If so, he will recognise that the increases in quantity are relatively small. One reason for the small increase in quantity is given by the national household survey which says that there has been a substantial switch to subsidised foods on the part of families with four or more children. That is something I welcome, because it has offset what would otherwise be a decline in their diet.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Can the right hon. Lady say what sense there is in increasing food subsidies—or even in having them at all—in so far as they have no effect on the lower paid who then have to pay increased rates because the right hon. Lady's Government will not give the increased subsidies to the councils to allow them to reduce their rates?

Mrs. Williams: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. I know that he does not always support party policy, but it was stated in the manifesto of his own party in the last election that it would continue food subsidies because of their effect on prices. That argument is good enough for me. I believe that it is a strong reason for trying to protect the least-well-off against the effects of inflation.

Mr. Stanley: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is her latest estimate of the percentage of expenditure on food subsidies in the current financial year that will go

to households whose income is less than £40 per week.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On the basis of patterns of consumption recorded in the latest family expenditure survey, it is estimated that 33 per cent. of the benefit will be received by households with incomes below £40 per week. In general, as a result of changes in taxation, the net benefit of the Government's expenditure on subsidies goes to the lower income groups.

Mr. Stanley: As the Secretary of State's answer indicated that approximately two-thirds of the expenditure on food subsidies goes to those who do not require help, how will she in future use the considerable sums of taxpayers' money at the disposal of her Department less wastefully than is the case now?

Mrs. Williams: The present benefit of food subsidies to an average family is 85p a week. To a pensioner couple it is 45p a week. In the case of families in the highest income groups, the whole effect is completely offset by increases in income tax. That is what we on this side of the House mean by redistributing income and wealth.

Mrs. Gwilym Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley) has used the statistics is completely meaningless? The relevant question is not what percentage of the money goes to this type of household but what percentage of households are in this category. We come back to the statistic, which shows how ridiculous the question is.

Mrs. Williams: In welcoming my hon. Friend's comment, I would point out that £40 per week is not the average wage. It is considerably below that.

Mr. Alison: Having regard to the balance of benefit that the right hon. Lady has just described, may I ask whether she thinks or does not think that this justifies the phasing-out of subsidies over a period?

Mrs. Williams: I have always made clear that in the long run our hope is that we might be able to phase out subsidies in the interests of other kinds of social expenditure. It is also clear, however, that that is impossible in a situation


in which inflationary pressures are so great.

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the weekly saving to each family afforded by current food subsidies.

Mr. Maclennan: On the basis of the national food survey results for the second quarter of 1974, the estimated saving for a typical family of two adults and two children is about 85p per week.

Mr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that these subsidies represent a diversion of expenditure from investment towards consumption and that the proper way to assist those who need assistance is by allowances specifically tailored to their needs? Will he press for an early end to these practices, which distort the whole pattern of supply and price?

Mr. Maclennan: I think that there is little evidence that such distortion occurs. I would simply remind the hon. Member of the statement in his party's election manifesto that
With the urgent need to stabilise prices we accept that it will be necessary to retain these subsidies for the time being.
Perhaps his quarrel is with his own Front Bench.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the implication of the observations of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) is directly to attack the living standards of working families to the extent of 85p per week?

Mr. Maclennan: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hordern: If two-thirds of the subsidy goes to those families who do not require it, and if that amount is raised by taxation, surely it is much more sensible that either companies or individuals should be allowed to choose how they spend their money than that they should receive food subsidies that they do not require?

Mr. Maclennan: The House will be edified by the debate going on within the Conservative Party on this as on other matters. But the subsidy savings are of great benefit to large families in the lower income groups, who have to spend a large

part of their money on the necessities of life. The higher income groups are paying for the subsidies through their taxes, and the food subsidies are, in fact, redistributing income in favour of those who are less well off.

Mr. Arthur Latham: Would my hon. Friend accept that lower-income families in my constituency welcome food subsidies and prefer them to be on the basis of what the Opposition describe as "indiscriminate" rather than have to face the alternatives of going without or being subjected to yet another humiliating means test?

Mr. Maclennan: The attractiveness of that point has not escaped the Government.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she intends to set any upper limit to the increase in food subsidies.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Under Section 1 of the Prices Act 1974, the total expenditure on food subsidies may not exceed £700 million. If further funds are required, parliamentary approval will be sought in the usual way.

Mr. Adley: The right hon. Lady, however much she tries to duck it and however much her hon. Friends may not like it, has just informed the House that 67 per cent. of food subsidies goes to families who cannot be described as being in need, and her hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead)—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a question?

Mr. Adley: Does the right hon. Lady agree with her hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North that sugar is now available only to people who are able to afford paying for it off grocery bills? When will she wake up to the fact that many people are again realising that under a Labour Government the rich get richer and the poor get poorer?

Mrs. Williams: And when will the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) read the last Budget, the reports of the Price Commission, and the reports on the Prices Bill? If he read any of those things, he would


know perfectly well that it is totally untrue to suggest that the higher income groups who get subsidies—because we are determined that people shall not be means-tested—pay more than once over for them.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend explain why it is that since the last election the Conservatives have been clamouring night and day to get financial help, subsidies, and money on any excuse for the farmers but that when it comes to the ordinary consumer they are against subsidies of any sort? Why is it that it is always the farmers and the industrialists who must be helped?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that the previous Conservative administration heavily subsidised industry, nationalised industry and farming. For some reason best known to themselves, the one thing they objected to subsidising was food.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: If it is the Secretary of State's intention to use to the full the £700 million for subsidies to which she referred, how does she reconcile the artificial cheapening of food to those who do not need it with our international obligations to the millions who are starving?

Mrs. Williams: I think the hon. Gentleman will find that there is no necessary conflict between believing that there should be a policy of reasonable justice towards the lower income groups in one's own community and believing that there should be a similar policy in relation to the lower income groups in the rest of the world.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it appears from supplementary questions by hon. Members during the past few minutes that half the Tory spokesmen want to stop socio-economic groups 4 and 5 not only from breeding but from eating as well, and that the remainder of the spokesmen want all of the £700 million to be put on blue Stilton cheese?

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will make a statement on the total estimated cost of food subsidies in 1974 and what proportion of

these subsidies will go to families earning less than the average national wage.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): The estimated expenditure on food subsidies in the calendar year 1974 is £340 million, of which about one-half is expected to go to families whose income is below the national average.

Mr. Renton: Does not the Minister agree that Britain's economic and financial resources are very strained at the moment and that the answer he has given, like that of the Secretary of State, emphasises that there are far more efficient ways of redistributing income than by the Government's commitment from the bottomless pit of subsidies—for example, by index-linking all social security benefits?

Mr. Williams: In that case the hon. Gentleman must explain why he fought the last election in support of retaining our subsidies. He must decide whether, having deserted their Leader, the Opposition are now going to desert their policies.

Mr. Emery: Does the hon. Gentleman' realise that continuing subsidies for short periods specifically to aid those who are worst off, which is what we fought the election on, would mean, according to the figures given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that two-thirds of the £700 million is not going to those in greatest need? Will he do something to ensure that that money goes to those who really need it?

Mr. Williams: Half goes to those with below the average income and the rest is recouped in taxation from the higher income groups. The alternative would be an arbitrary system in which there was a very low take-up based on a means test. Hon. Gentlemen should know from their own experience that that does not work fairly.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHEESE

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she will include blue Stilton in the cheese subsidy at a level comparable to other English cheeses.

Mr. Maclennan: The manufacturers have made representations on this subject, but I have no proposals to do so at present.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how grossly unfair this is to the manufacturers such as those in my own constituency at Hartington, for instance, who are large manufacturers of blue Stilton? While there is a subsidy of £188 per ton on white Stilton it seems grossly unfair that blue Stilton should be discriminated against. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is jeopardising a great many jobs in an area where it is difficult to find alternative employment? As long as these subsidies continue, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman will know that in introducing the cheese subsidy we were seeking to subsidise cheeses which were price competitors with Cheddar. Blue Stilton remains a luxury cheese of a specialised taste.

Mr. Rost: Is it not nonsense to increase the subsidies on a wide range of imported foreign cheeses at a time when the British farmer is not receiving a fair return and British cheese production is declining?

Mr. Maclennan: The tiny proportion of foreign cheeses which are benefiting from subsidy are all price competitive with Cheddar and, therefore, eligible. The hon. Gentleman would do well to recognise that in pursuing our policy we have been following our international obligations under the GATT.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the question on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection whether she is satisfied with the present level of subsidy on white Stilton cheese; and whether she will make a statement.

Mr. Maclennan: Yes, Sir. The rate of subsidy, which has been increased to £188 per ton with effect from today to offset EEC decisions on farm prices, applies to all eligible varieties of cheese, including white Stilton.

Mr. Latham: How much longer will the Minister continue to waste £21 million of public money on subsidising foreign cheeses of which no one has ever heard while discriminating against blue Stilton, the production process of which is exactly the same as for white Stilton?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that if we accepted the arguments of his hon. Friends we should be subsidising blue Stilton and other comparable cheeses and expending at least an extra £3 million of taxpayers' money.
In a letter to the Stilton Cheesemakers' Association my Department has indicated that we shall be prepared to consider any specific evidence that the association may bring forward to show that subsidies have affected sales of blue Stilton. So far it has not done so.

Oral Answers to Questions — Consumer Advice

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will consider measures for improving consumer protection at a national level and at a local level with a network of local advice.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I announced on 10th September the Government's intention to establish a National Consumers' Agency. I have been encouraging local authorities to expand their services to consumers; and a nationwide network of consumer advice centres is now taking shape to compliment the citizens' advice bureaux. About a dozen of these centres have been opened since March, and there are expected to be many more by the end of next year.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am doubly pleased, because a consumer advice centre has been set up in my constituency in Aberdare by the Mid-Glamorgan authority and is working well. In addition to the local centres to give a voice to the people in the High Street, is there not a need for a national voice for the consumer? The CBI expresses the view of industry and the TUC expresses the voice of the worker in trade unions. Is there not a need for a large consumer authority to give a voice and to provide a platform to put the consumers' viewpoint at national level?

Mrs. Williams: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the foresightedness of his local authority, and I hope that other Welsh authorities will follow that lead. The purpose of the National Consumers' Agency is to do exactly what my hon. Friend wants—to give the consumer a voice in Government committees, because the agency will be able to put the consumer's point of view strongly. We also intend that that consumer agency will have a specific Welsh and a specific Scottish committee.

Mr. Robert Taylor: The right hon. Lady will recall that we were very pleased to welcome her recently in the London borough of Croydon where she opened one of these consumer centres. Is she aware, however, that, in view of the alarming forecast of increases in rates, many people on our local council are anxiously hoping that the council will reconsider the expenditure which that consumer centre is incurring? Can the right hon. Lady give some indication of what the extra burden will be on ratepayers throughout the country if consumer centres are opened by every local authority?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate the outcome of the rate support grant negotiations, but may I say immediately that the value to ratepayers of consumer advice centres, in terms of complaints met and savings made on services and goods, is, I imagine, from the reports I have received—I have not the figures in front of me—more than favourable.

Mr. Whitehead: When my right hon. Friend makes her welcome visit to my constituency on 19th November to open one of these centres, will she be prepared to consider representations from my constituents about the practice of sugar hoarding, and particularly about the practice of shopkeepers in my constituency of not allowing sugar to be sold to customers unless a considerable number of other purchases is made, which hurts very much those of restricted means?

Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Department has written to all retail trades and retail trade federations asking them specifically not to make a condition of this kind, above all in respect of pensioners and low-income

group customers. One of the services that a consumer advice centre can perform at local level is to publicise the behaviour of shopkeepers in this respect.

Mr. Neubert: Is the right hon. Lady aware that one of the organisations introducing arbitrary sugar rationing is the London Co-op? If she believes it to be against the consumer's interest to have to purchase at least 50p-worth of other goods, whether wanted or not, in order to buy sugar, will she use her sisterly influence on that organisation to end the practice forthwith?

Mrs. Williams: Those who have been advised include all retailers, including the co-operative societies.

Oral Answers to Questions — Service Contracts (Exclusion Clauses)

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will introduce legislation to make exclusion clauses in contracts for services void.

Mr. Alan Williams: As soon as the Law Commissions' report is received, we shall consider urgently what changes are required.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend accept that that answer is unsatisfactory and that the Law Commissions are a long time reporting? Will he further accept that only a very slight alteration would be required to the Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act 1973? Is he aware that capitalist organisations such as Pontin's and Butlin's will continue to evade their responsibilities through the fine clause in their contract, and will he please treat this as a matter of urgency to protect people in future?

Mr. Williams: I treat this as a matter of urgency. The fact is that the Law Commissions are an independent body and are producing their own report. I accept my hon. Friend's points about the difficulty that this makes for consumers, but at this stage I cannot anticipate the form that the legislation will take. If it were a simple matter of modifying existing legislation we could do that, but it is far more complex in the service sector than in the goods sector.

Oral Answers to Questions — Retail Price Index

Mr. Rost: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection what is the current percentage rate of increase in the retail price index.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she will show the increase which has taken place in the cost of living from 1st March 1974 until the latest available date.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: The retail price index rose by 17·1 per cent. during the 12 months up to September 1974. The increase since the figure published in February 1974 has been 9·1 per cent.

Mr. Rost: Is that figure of 17·4 per cent. higher or lower than the 8·4 per cent.?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman should be aware of two things, first that he has, perhaps unconsciously, inflated the figure I gave to the House and secondly that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was speaking about a three-months' level. The figures were absolutely accurate; the figure was 8·4 per cent. I may add that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) stated during the election that a massive number of price applications were waiting for the Price Commission. We now have the report of the commission, which shows that the number of applications and the increases demanded fell from 23 per cent. in the period from December to February to 9½ per cent. in the period from June to August.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Would I be correct in suggesting to my right hon. Friend that, had it not been for her and, incidentally, her Department, prices would have risen to a far greater extent than they have done in the past few months? Will my right hon. Friend give an indication of what the magnitude of that rise would have been had she not been in office?

Mrs. Williams: We make modest claims in my Department, but our best estimate is that rises of about 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. on the RPI and approximately 6 per cent. to 10 per cent. on the food index would have occurred without the measures that we have taken.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the significance she attaches to the Price Commission's report is as distorted as the figures given by the Chancellor? Is not the right hon. Lady aware that she has not made the point that three months must elapse before an application is made and that all the factors in the retail price indices are not included in the Price Commission's concept?
Furthermore, is the right hon. Lady aware that the National Federation of Consumer Groups has published a figure showing that inflation in basic grocery prices is running at a rate of 34 per cent., that more than 10,000 separate grocery items have risen in price since the right hon. Lady came to office and that housewives do not need her statistics, the "phoney" figures of the Chancellor or mine, because they know that prices are rising faster than ever before? Is the right hon. Lady further aware that indiscriminate subsidies have only slightly moderated price increases? Will she admit that direct help would have been more effective?

Mrs. Williams: I think the hon. Lady will find that more words do not make up for fewer facts. May I begin by saying that the reason for a three-month freeze is the action taken specifically by the present Government. When the hon. Lady attributes a slower rate of price increase to that action, I shall be happy to take the credit.
Secondly, the survey to which the hon. Lady referred covered less than 20 per cent. of food products. I believe that it is fair to take the Price Commission's figures, which covered the whole range.

Mr. Sedgemore: Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the percentage increase in the retail price index over the next 12 months which would follow the total abolition of price control? Will she confirm, too, that the CBI's estimate of 1¾ per cent. belongs not to the realm of economic analysis but to the land of the fairies?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that it is my Department's view that the implications of totally removing the Price Code would be considerably greater than some of the statistics advanced. It is not our intention for one moment to do so.

Sir John Rodgers: May I remind the Minister of a remark by Winston Churchill about a former Labour Prime Minister, since the right hon. Lady has said how modest she and her Department are? Churchill described Mr. Attlee as "a very modest decent little man with a great deal to be modest about".

Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend answer this question? In view of the obvious relative success that her Department has had in controlling prices, can she state categorically that that success will be maintained? Without asking my right hon. Friend to anticipate tomorrow's Budget, may I ask whether she is really saying, as she did in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), that there will be no relaxation whatsoever?

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend will to a great extent have to wait until tomorrow, but the reply that I gave to his hon. Friend and mine was that there was no intention of abolishing the Price Code. For any further information, my hon. Friends must wait for tomorrow's Budget Statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — Service to Consumers

Mr. Carter: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection if she is satisfied that increased consumer protection has produced better service to the consumer.

Mr. Alan Williams: Yes, Sir. But I am continually seeking ways of encouraging further improvement.

Mr. Carter: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while it is true that because of consumer protection it is now much easier to get goods changed or to get one's money back, many industries see this as the limit of their responsibilities and are ignoring the subject of quality, and in many cases quality is actually falling? Does he agree that quality is just as much a part of consumer protection as is anything else, and will he carry out investigations to determine to what extent consumer protection might have affected quality?

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the examples which he has put to the Department. I have been having discussions recently with the Director General of Fair Trading on the

quality of certain products. For example, one obviously has looked at the report which appeared recently about the quality of boots and shoes. If there is any way in which one can improve the protection given to consumers, it will be our objective to do so.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his Department has given no protection whatsoever to consumers in relation to the sugar shortage, that rationing at an earlier stage could have avoided intolerable pressures on shopkeepers and consumers, that insulting remarks about hoarding relating, for example, to working housewives and housewives with young families, have caused a great deal of anger, and that if anybody is hoarding it is people who can afford to pay the financial sanctions—which I asked the right hon. Lady to stop and which she partially condoned in a Written Answer to me and which means rationing by cost, a strange concept for a Labour Government?

Mr. Williams: I am sure my right hon. Friend will note that the Conservative Party is now asking for rationing.

Mr. Raison: Can the hon. Gentleman say what he expects to happen to sugar prices over the next few months and what steps, if any, the Government propose to take on this?

Mr. Williams: That goes way beyond this Question. I advise the hon. Gentleman to table a specific Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sugar

Mr. Giles Shaw: asked the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection why relief from provisions of the Price Code has been given to sugar refiners under Statutory Instrument No. 1793, but no relief has been given to food manufacturers using sugar.

Mr. Maclennan: There were two main reasons for the decision to shorten the 28 days' notification period for the sugar refiners. First, the increased price for sugar supplied under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement dated back to 1st September and made it necessary for the refiners to recover excess costs on earlier shipments as well as the higher costs for current supplies. Secondly, a price


equalisation scheme had to be introduced quickly to avoid distortion of competition in the food industry and inequity between different groups of consumers. I consider that these circumstances are unique.

Mr. Shaw: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his comments, may I ask him three questions? First, in the name of equalisation, the principle which was involved, would it not be fair that those who use sugar in the production of food should be entitled to the same benefit as the refiners vis-à-vis the Price Code? Second, in the name of equalisation and in so far as there are problems of maintaining profitability and cash within the food industry, is the Minister aware that some £20 million has been added to the costs of the food industry by this measure alone? Thirdly, again in the name of equalisation, there are some 9,000 jobs at stake in sugar refining. There are 250,000 jobs in those parts of the food industry which are dependent upon sugar. Should they not have equal protection too?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's comparison between the position of the sugar refiners and that of manufacturers using sugar is not entirely apt, for the reasons I have given. The liquidity problems of the sugar manufacturers are real but not special. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to await the outcome of the Price Code review, which will be announced tomorrow, before further considering the matter. I think that may cover his two latter points.

Mr. Tom King: In looking at a review of the Price Code, is the Minister aware of the particular problem of whether sugar is defined as a raw material? This matter was raised once before, and it was agreed that sugar was a raw material and, therefore, food manufacturers were entitled to relief under the Price Code. I understand, however, that the Price Commission has now changed its view again. Will the hon. Gentleman look at the matter?

Mr. Maclennan: That point has been made to us in the course of consultations on the review of the code, and I ask the hon. Member to await the announcement tomorrow.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is it not a fact that the Government have left negotia

tions on cane sugar so late that there are no supplies available? Is it not also a fact that the negotiations on Australian sugar dillied and dallied so long that those supplies are not available? That being the case, we have the situation that food manufacturers, having relied on Government assurances, are now having to go into the open market and pay a huge sum per ton of sugar. In those circumstances, is it not just that they should be viewed with understanding by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that it was his Government which left the whole position wide open. The present Government are engaged this week in discussions under Protocol 22, and we hope to have something more categorical to ensure the access of 1·4 million tons of cane sugar to the market than his right hon. Friend left us with.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Off-Peak Electricity

Mr. Bryant Godman: Irvine asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the price and conditions of use of off-peak electricity.

The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alex Eadie): As my right hon. Friend indicated in his statement on 29th July, at his request the area boards in England and Wales have adjusted off-peak electricity prices to restore the previous percentage relationship with standard prices. The conditions of use are a matter for the boards.

Mr. Godman Irvine: Attention has been drawn to the fact that notices are being issued indicating that the number of hours in which night storage is available is being reduced by one per day. Can the Minister suggest any possible explanation, except that there is a reduction in the facility and an increase in price?

Mr. Eadie: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is driving at. If he is referring to the situation in the Eastern and East Midlands Electricity Board's areas, I should like to tell him that there is no formal approval needed so far as I am concerned. The decision is voluntary. In our view, it is a proposal to save


energy, but I stress that it is voluntary as far as the consumers are concerned. I understand that the majority of consumers should be able to save on their electricity bills.

Mr. Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the use of night storage heaters by elderly people, who during the winter months often wish to have a boost of the heaters during the afternoon when the storage level is running out? They are quite willing to pay the prevailing cost of electricity for heating at that time. Certain electricity boards refuse to allow the necessary sort of meter to be added and, because of the board's monopoly position, that means that elderly people have to remain cold. Will the hon. Gentleman look into that and see whether the situation can be corrected?

Mr. Eadie: I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that that does not lie within the responsibility of the Department of Energy. His experience will tell him that it is a matter that rests in the hands of the area electricity boards concerned. I am concerned about the hon. Gentleman's emotive claim about pensioners being cold. If there is any credibility in the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, I am sure that the respective area boards will take note.

Mr. Tomlinson: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the best way to help old-age pensioners in this matter is for Opposition Members to support the Government's pension proposals in order that pensioners receive a decent pension and so are able to afford to pay their way in society as others do? Let us give them a proper basis of pension rather than make them live on concessions.

Mr. Eadie: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. The difficulty last week was that when it came to funding the increase of the £10 and £16 pensions that the minority Labour Government proposed, Opposition Members and others refused to have the courage of their convictions and opposed the necessary increases in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Tom King: Would not the biggest contribution towards helping with the cost of electricity be to ensure an ample available supply of coal? Can the Minister say why there has been such a deafening silence of advice from his Depart-

ment to the mining industry on the importance of the productivity schemes?

Mr. Eadie: I think that the hon. Gentleman has not been paying attention to what has been happening. He should hear the statements my right hon. Friend and I have made at various meetings about coal production. But if the hon. Gentleman has a specific question to put on this matter, I hope that he will put it on the Order Paper. I assure him that we shall try to answer it to the best of our ability.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: When the Minister gets back to his Department, will he make a thorough investigation to see to what extent during the three years when the hon. Member's party was in Government and held the reins it implemented the hon. Member's admirable suggestion?

Mr. Eadie: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said, but the whole House is well aware that when one finds oneself in opposition there is sometimes a tendency to reminisce a little about what one should have done when one was in office. The present Government are going to act. That is the distinction.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

Industry Act Assistance

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many trade unions and industries have made representations to his Department for advice or assistance since he took office; and how many he estimates he has been able to save from either bankruptcy or closure during that period.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Meacher): My Department keeps in close touch with both trade unions and management, and no statistics are kept on the number of representations received. Since 1st March 1974, financial assistance under Section 7 and Section 8 of the Industry Act has been offered in 16 cases for the purposes of maintaining employment.

Mr. Spriggs: I regret that statistics have not been kept. I appreciate that part of my hon. Friend's reply, but would he consider the problems of industry in industrial towns such as St. Helens, where


the glass industry is having to make hundreds of workers redundant, whereas at the same time British industries are importing commodities such as glass and other essential raw materials? Could not the production of our workers here be utilised by firms such as British Leyland Motors which are using foreign glass for the vehicles which they are selling here and overseas?

Mr. Meacher: I appreciate the problems to which my hon. Friend refers, particularly those concerning Pilkinton at St. Helens. The basic problem results from the fall in demand in the domestic market following the sudden reintroduction of hire-purchase and rental controls in the Budget of last December. I cannot anticipate anything in that respect that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor may say on the subject tomorrow. With regard to providing alternative employment in the event of certain redundancies—I point out to my hon. Friend that there are several alternative glass projects now in hand—the regional office of my Department will be willing to look very carefully at any applications for Section 7 assistance.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Has the hon. Gentleman had any request for advice or help from Mr. Scanlon? Has he noticed that Mr. Scanlon is apparently an unconscionably bad employer? He has given himself a rise, he is not prepared to concede a rise to his employees, and he does not even give them a tea break. Has the Minister received any request from Mr. Scanlon on how to run his own office?

Mr. Meacher: We have not had any such request, nor is it expected, and that supplementary question has nothing to do with the Question.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does the Minister accept that the offer of financial assistance to the Meriden co-operative has threatened the jobs in Wolverhampton and Birmingham of those employed in NVT?

Mr. Meacher: It certainly is not the case, because, although assistance has been given to the Meriden co-operative it is also the case with NVT that £8 million out of a total of £12 million required of the guarantee for NVT's export stock will be provided under Section 8. We have

been very careful that the assistance given to Meriden will in no way impinge on the employment prospects of that company elsewhere.

Mr. Heseltine: Can the Minister tell us when the Meriden co-operative will start production?

Mr. Meacher: The Government, as the hon. Gentleman ought to know, have agreed to give assistance of £4,950,000 in grant and loan on a once-for-all basis to set up the co-operative at Meriden, which would otherwise have been closed under the plans to rationalise motor cycle production at Norton Villiers Triumph. We look forward to the beginning of operations at the Meriden co-operative in the near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Sugar

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present prospects for the supply of granulated, caster, cube, icing and brown sugar to housewives in the shops.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): On total supply I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and others on 7th November. As to the speciality sugars, I understand that production levels in the pre-Christmas period should be normal in proportion to total supplies.

Mr. Morris: Were not representations made to the Government as long ago as March, covering speciality and granulated sugar? When will the Minister face the fact that by and large housewives are not hoarding sugar and that, unless the Government either bring in rationing or improve the supply, pensioners and women who go out to work will have no sugar and the rest of the community will have very little?

Mr. Strang: If one ignores the action at Silvertown—which is, of course, over—the supplies this year are at least as high as last year, both in total and in terms of retail packs. I cannot accept the hon. Member's assertion that there is


no hoarding by housewives, but we have an abnormally high level of demand at present, and the satisfactory conclusion will be for decent long-term assurances to be obtained by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: We have been having complacent answers for about six months, during which time sugar has not been available for long periods in many towns in Scotland and England. Would it not be sensible to come to a long-term arrangement whereby we can get sugar—namely, with Australia? If this cannot be done, why cannot there be sugar rationing to ensure fair shares all round?

Mr. Strang: I totally reject the suggestion of complacency, but I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that the sensible solution is long-term contracts and arrangements. I regret very much that his right hon. Friends did not take this into account when they were negotiating our entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a bizarre state of affairs when we hear spokesmen for the Tories, who for centuries have hoarded money and commodities of all kinds and have been depriving ordinary people of decent living standards as a result of their hoarding activities, now complaining because there appears perhaps to be a little bit of hoarding by those in the lower strata?

Mr. Strang: As usual, I agree absolutely with everything my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Peyton: Will the hon. Gentleman now apply his mind to the future and say what the Government's plans are to ensure adequate supplies?

Mr. Strang: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that these matters are being discussed this week in the Council of Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be discussing them further and, hopefully, reaching satisfactory conclusions next week. We are confident that we shall secure the 1·4 million tons access of sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries.

Pig Premium

Mr. Hardy: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has considered the effect of the pig premium

upon the price of pigmeat; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Strang: The special pig subsidy should mean that next year the price of pigmeat is not quite as high as it would have been had producers not received this substantial assistance.

Mr. Hardy: Does my hon. Friend agree that he and his right hon. Friend may be disappointed by the lack of effect of the premium on the pig market since March? Does he attribute this disappointment to the fact that only a minority of pigs are sold in markets yet they seem to determine the price of the majority? Does not that suggest that there ought to be a careful review of the whole system of meat marketing in this country?

Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend has made a very useful suggestion, but the premium has certainly improved confidence. It is reflected in the fact that the levels of sow and boar slaughterings are now below what they were a year ago.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: If the hon. Gentleman is so sure that this has restored confidence, can he give the House an estimate of the existing number of sows and gilts in the national pig herd at present, and give a forecast of slaughterings for the next three months?

Mr. Strang: I would need advance notice of that question, but I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the signs are that the position is improving.

Canned Meat Additives

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will prohibit the use of additives to canned meat which increase its water content.

Mr. Strang: No, Sir. There is legislation already in force to control the composition of canned meats. Minimum meat contents are prescribed and general controls are imposed over the nature, substance and quality of the products as sold to the consumer. The additives which may be used are also controlled and the use of a description which might mislead the consumer as to the nature of the product is prohibited.

Mr. Watkins: Is my hon. Friend aware that recent well-documented Press reports indicate that some well-known brands of canned ham contain 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. of their weight as water and that there is a 20 per cent. increase as a result of the additives used? Will he, therefore, seek a much more stringent application of the legislation which he outlined in his answer?

Mr. Strang: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we want the most stringent possible application of this legislation, and he has referred to a very important matter. Normally, an excessive addition of water would put products at risk under several provisions of the legislation.

FIRE (ISLINGTON)

Mr. George Cunningham: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the fire at a hostel in Liverpool Road, Islington on 9th November in which eight persons died, and the lessons it holds for the operation of the Fire Precautions Act.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): A serious fire occurred at 112–114 Liverpool Road, Islington, at about 1.30 on Sunday morning. The premises are used as sleeping accommodation for road transport drivers. The premises consist of two storeys above ground floor shops, and include a basement, used partly for sleeping accommodation and partly to store mattresses. The fire is believed to have started in this store. Of about 20 persons on the premises, five died in the fire and three others were found to be dead on arrival at hospital. I would like to express my deep sympathy with those who have been bereaved by this appalling tragedy.
It was with the object of preventing accidents of this kind that the Fire Precautions Act 1971 was passed and the first designation order under the Act made applicable to hotels and boarding houses. I understand that the occupier of these premises applied for a fire certificate in July. Although the Greater London Council regarded them as outside the scope of that order, it subsequently concluded that they were a hotel. Plans

were called for in October as a preliminary to inspection.
The fire authority is holding an urgent investigation as to the cause of the fire. In the meantime I am considering what other action might be taken, but I would certainly again urge all hotel and boarding house keepers who have not applied for a fire certificate to do so at once.

Mr. Cunningham: May I express my sympathy to the relatives of those who died in this fire and my thanks to the firemen, the police and, not least, the local residents who were responsible for saving some lives which would otherwise have been lost?
Is the Home Secretary aware that this hostel would not have been operating as such if central Government had not overruled the refusal of Islington Borough Council of planning permission for the hostel, although I stress that the refusal was not based upon fire risk or anything to do with precautions?
Will the Home Secretary tell us what action might be taken, given the shortage of staff in the GLC for this purpose, to speed up the inspection of hotel and hostel accommodation in London so that there is no repetition of this tragedy.

Mr. Jenkins: I am sure that we all agree with my hon. Friend's expressions of sympathy and echo his thanks to the services concerned.
Secondly, I was not aware that central Government had overruled the local authority, but I will look into that. I note that my hon. Friend says that it was not on account of any fire risk.
Thirdly, on the speeding up of inspection and matters relating to fire precautions, there are two issues. The occupier applied for a fire certificate in July. There is possible ambiguity about the scope of the order laid in 1972. I propose to look into that to see whether the ambiguity can be removed. That may be one of the main lessons to be drawn. The earlier that people who feel that they are in the position of being hotel or boarding house keepers apply for certificates, the better the chance of dealing with the matter as expeditiously as possible. I do not think that anyone can feel wholly satisfied with this situation. I do not myself, and I intend to look into it as early as possible.

Mr. Lane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition join in expressing sympathy with the families of the men who died and were injured and also in paying tribute to the fire service, which perhaps does not receive public praise as often as it should.
May I ask about the progress of the Fire Precaution Act, to which he and his hon. Friend referred, and which very much concerned us in Government? We agree with him that there are difficulties. The Home Secretary will have seen the rather disturbing figures in the recent annual report of the Chief Inspector of the Fire Service about the rate of progress. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we support him in any review he makes which will result in the Act being applied more quickly?
In doing this will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind two possibilities? The first is to persuade the new fire authorities which have been in existence for six months to give this work high priority. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to make sure that the number of firms engaged in fire precautions work goes on increasing at the fastest possible rate?

Mr. Jenkins: I strongly reiterate what the hon. Gentleman said about paying tribute to the fire service. It is sometimes one of the more neglected of our public services. I am glad he said that. It very much represents my own view.
As to the implementation of the 1971 Act, I notice that within the GLC area, with which we are primarily concerned here, applications relating to 1,489 premises have been received, and 1,475 premises have been surveyed. Although 100 per cent. would be desirable, that is a satisfactory proportion. The number of fire certificates issued is 218, and that might well be regarded as a less satisfactory proportion. In many cases constructional work is required before the certificates can be issued. What these figures point to is that, save exceptionally, the delay is not in inspecting premises for which applications have been received. It may be that applications do not come in soon enough, and that there is too great a delay in carrying out the necessary construction work to enable a certificate to be issued. I will pursue these matters.

Mr. Beith: Does the Home Secretary agree that the appalling loss of life vindicates the importance attached to the regulations? Does he accept that many hotel keepers are desperate to get this work completed but face difficulty in getting planning applications processed for the necessary alterations and sometimes in getting mortgage finance for the work involved? Will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to assist the many hotel keepers who are desperate to avoid situations of this kind?

Mr. Jenkins: There is an obligation on everyone concerned, including hotel keepers, but there are financial difficulties. There is provision under the Fire Precautions (Loans) Act for local authorities to make loans, and the Government have recently extended the provision for tax relief on expenditure on fire precautions which is necessitated by the 1971 Act. There has been progress here, but I will certainly keep the matter under review.

Mr. Adley: Is the Home Secretary aware that all hon. Members will wish to express sympathy with the relatives of those who suffered this tragic loss of life? The hon. Gentleman referred to the dubiety whether the premises fitted the description of a hotel, and many people will be grateful to him for taking up that point.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many boarding house and guest house keepers are unable to shoulder the financial burden of complying with the Fire Precautions Act, and that all of us in the House have a part to play in the way in which when the 1971 Act went through we perhaps failed to recognise the problems of very small operators? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who has had several meetings with the parliamentary Tourism Committee, and give serious consideration to making available either Government low-interest loans or, if necessary, grants for the people who are in a small way of business, so that tragedies of this nature may not occur again?

Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said. I dealt to some extent with the latter part of his question in replying to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It will


not be necessary to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to what he said. She has heard it and will take notice of it in seeing whether there is anything we can reasonably do, beyond the changes which have already been made. to give some financial help in this respect.

Mr. Michael Morris: May I add my expression of sympathy to those who have suffered loss and indeed to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). May I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, concern was expressed as far back as 1970–71 about fire precautions in this hostel? The worrying feature about this hostel and others is that local authorities know that there are a number of establishments of this nature which are more of a fire risk than others. What concerns me is that it has taken almost three years for this hostel to apply for a certificate, and that there must be many others which are as big a risk and which have not yet come forward.

Mr. Jenkins: I know the hon. Gentleman's close local government knowledge on this issue and take into account what he said. It was not until July that the certificate was applied for, and this underlines the importance of those concerned

coming forward as early as possible to apply for certificates if they are covered by the terms of the order. If there is any doubt, let us try to make the order clear.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will the Home Secretary also bear in mind that there is a great shortage throughout the country of hostel accommodation for single men and that undoubtedly many hostels are inadequate in their fire precautions? Since many of these hostels are non-profit-making and cannot afford to bring nineteenth-century buildings to twentieth-century fire standards, will my right hon. Friend look at this aspect when he reviews the grant arrangements to bring properties up to fire precaution standards?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. There is provision for local authorities to make loans, and there is also provision for tax relief. However, if the organisation is non-profit-making, the provision as to tax relief does not bite.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Married Women and Widows Special Provisions Amendment Regulations 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Orders of the Day — CHANNEL TUNNEL BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30th October].
That, if a Bill is presented to this House in the same terms as those of the Channel Tunnel Bill as it was ordered to be considered before Parliament was dissolved, the Bill so presented shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time, and to have been reported from a Standing Committee to the House, and shall be ordered to be considered accordingly, and the Standing Orders and practice of this House applicable to the Bill shall be deemed to have been complied with.—[Mr. Frederick Mulley.]

Question again proposed.

3.47 p.m.

The Minister for Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): This motion was formally moved on 30th October and then adjourned to a more convenient time for debate. By its nature, it was necessary that the motion should be tabled at the earliest moment in the Session. In short, the purpose of the motion is to ensure that the Channel Tunnel Bill which was before the House last Session resumes at the point it had reached when the House was dissolved in September.
As the House knows, the Channel Tunnel Bill is a technical Bill to provide powers to acquire land and to carry out works in order that the tunnel may be constructed. In no way is it concerned with the proposed rail link, which is part of the tunnel programme. The Bill is a hybrid Bill, which means that it must go through the private Bill procedure, notably a Select Committee procedure, as well as all stages of a public Bill.
The Bill was initially introduced and given a Second Reading on 5th December 1973. We then had a General Election before the Select Committee could begin its work and the Bill was carried over to the following Parliament. The Bill was again given a Second Reading in April. Subsequently, it completed its Select Committee and Standing Committee stages, and that was the stage it had reached when the House was dissolved last September.
The eventuality that the Bill might not complete its stages before an election was foreseen in the Standing Committee. On the third day of the Standing Com

mittee proceedings the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) inquired about the arrangements made in the event of a dissolution, which the hon. Gentleman evidently then thought likely. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replied that a suitable motion would be put down to carry the Report stage forward because
… the object is to avoid the expense of going through another Select Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th July 1974; c. 118.]
That is the main purpose of the present motion.

Mr. Anthony Berry: The Minister is quite right to say that I was under the impression at that time that the motion would be tabled before the House rose for the General Election. Was it never the Minister's intention that the motion should have been tabled at that stage?

Mr. Mulley: It will be within the recollection of the House that the House was dissolved in the recess and therefore the House did not meet to enable a motion to be tabled. I was coming to that point. Had the House been in session, as it was in February when the election was called earlier in the year, that probably would have been the preferable way of dealing with the problem.
The Select Committee, which sat for 12 days under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), gave full and careful consideration to the petitions before it. I understand that there were 13 petitions representing 70 organisations. Although it is difficult to give an exact forecast of what the proceedings cost, since the expenses were borne by the organisations and the local authorities concerned, I estimate the cost at over £40,000 in all, including the Department's costs.
The principle which the House has readily accepted—and we did so again on 31st October—is that private Bills should be carried over from one Session to another wholly to save petitioners' costs and the time involved in having to go through the important but necessarily lengthy Select Committee procedure. We have already carried over a number of private Bills to this Session.
I understand that there may be some petitioners against the Channel Tunnel


Bill who would like another opportunity to come before the Commons, but there are others who would not wish that to happen. In any event, if the motion is passed today they will all have the opportunity to go before a Select Committee in another place. The Select Committee discharges its duties on a quasi-judicial basis. Indeed, the effect of our motion, if carried today, would be that we should have here the Report stage which gives an opportunity for matters of detail to be raised and a Third Reading debate to deal with the general character of the Bill. All stages would have to be completed—both the private Bill and public Bill stages—in another place. There are adequate possibilities to deal with any aspects of the Bill if the motion is carried today.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall be grateful if the Minister in his opening remarks would deal with two points which exercise many of us who have constituencies along the line of the Channel Tunnel railway link and which could affect the views of the House on the motion. Could he hold out any hope that, if the Bill is reintroduced, the Government at Report stage will adopt a more sympathetic attitude than they adopted in Committee to the proposal for compensation to be payable to the many householders whose homes are blighted by the uncertainty of the railway line? Secondly, will he give the House an assurance that alternative routes for the railway link, including the tunnel into Kent, are being considered as real alternatives by British Rail and are not merely being looked at as last-minute options which they do not want to take seriously? If the right hon. Gentleman can give satisfactory answers to those two points, it might affect the attitude of the House to the motion.

Mr. Mulley: I am sure that many hon. Members are concerned about the rail link. I intended to deal with that matter a little later. It is not part of the motion and not part of the Channel Tunnel Bill. I would be out of order on this Bill if I were to deal with compensation for land to be acquired in connection with the rail link. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will help me by voting for the motion and allowing the Bill to go to Report, so that we shall be able to see how far we can meet the real

concern which he expressed. I should first deal with the question of precedents—

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Following the point of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), could the Minister assure us that the details of the route will be the subject of public inquiries and that passing the Bill in this form will not preclude objectors from the opportunity of attending public inquiries about the details of what is involved in the Bill? This has caused a great deal of anxiety about the Bill, particularly going forward in this form.

Mr. Mulley: I will deal with the rail link in a moment, but out of courtesy to the House I should explain how the motion comes to be moved and the precedents and so on. The rail link is not part of the motion or of the Bill and passing both will not be prejudicial to the rail Bill which will have to be considered at another time. Public inquiries would not necessarily be part of that procedure.
There is no exact precedent, I am advised, for the motion, although it is of course usual for a hybrid or a Private Bill to be carried over from one Parliament to the next. A notable example is the late Lord Morrison's London Transport Bill which became the London Transport Act of 1933. That was carried over twice, but in that case I think that the motion was moved at an earlier stage.
But we are in a rather unusual situation, which arises from having held two General Elections in seven months, which no hon. Member would want to become a regular feature of our life. The situation was further complicated by the fact that the second Dissolution occurred in the recess. But the motion is in line with recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Suspension of Bills, called the Donoughmore Committee, which reported in 1929. [Interruption.] I am surprised that so many of my lion Friends should be offended by the prospect of doing something in this place which is not completely precedented. On most things, they tend to hold progressive indeed radical, views. I have always thought that we should try to adapt the proceedings and procedure of this House to meet the particular difficulties with which we are faced at present.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that I am one of the growing number of people who believe that there should be a lot of changes in this place, but he will also agree, I think, that when we had to act as we did a week ago last Wednesday, that was because we were placed in a position not of our own choosing but because someone had chosen to put it down in that manner. Would he agree that for some of us on occasions like this it is a question of killing the proposal by any means? Since he has chosen to table the motion in this Aunt Sally form, it is our job to knock it down.

Mr. Mulley: This comes conveniently in my remarks. My hon. Friend and many others are less concerned about the procedural aspect of the motion—

Mr. Skinner: That is right.

Mr. Mulley: —than they are about some of the other aspects.
I want to say a word now about the project itself and why this Channel Tunnel Bill is necessary. When the Labour Government took office in March, we had to come to a view whether to continue the phase II studies set up by the previous administration in pursuance of agreements and a treaty that they had signed with the French Government and with the English and French companies. The announcement that the Government had decided to continue with these studies so that the changing situation could be properly evaluated and the House and the country could be presented with a full set of facts on which to take the decision which still falls to be taken—whether to proceed to build a tunnel—did not imply any commitment to building the tunnel, not even a commitment in principle. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment made this clear to the House in April.
My right hon. Friend also said that a group of independent advisers would be set up to monitor the phase II studies to ensure that they were asking the right questions and collecting the right data. I am glad to say that Sir Alec Cairncross has undertaken to chair that group. There have been some delays because of the election, but a number of people have been appointed and the group has already

begun work. We are extremely grateful to Sir Alec and his colleagues for undertaking this task.

Mr. Peter Rees: Could the Minister tell us what the terms of reference of the commission will be and when it will report?

Mr. Mulley: It is not a commission. On the present timetable it is expected that it will report in time to coincide with the end of phase II in the spring of next year. It has no precise terms of reference, because its main function is to advise the Government and the House how the phase II studies have been carried out.

Sir John Rodgers: The Minister referred to this committee as "they". So far as I know, Sir Alec Cairncross is the only appointee at the moment, as chairman—and what is more, the terms of reference have not yet been published. Am I wrong? Have the members of the committee been appointed? If so, can he tell us who they are and what are the terms of reference?

Mr. Mulley: A parliamentary Answer to one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues last week set this out, but if there is any dubiety the Under-Secretary will give the necessary information when he winds up the debate. As I said, the Government made this clear.
Many hon. Members might think it odd—I would not argue too much if they did—that we are going through the process of enacting a Bill to build the tunnel and will possibly also have to go through the process of giving powers for a rail link without deciding first whether to build the tunnel. But this situation is one that the present Government inherited. I am certain that my predecessor came to these arrangements for good reasons, but that is the nature of the requirement of this Bill, that the Channel Tunnel Bill needs to be law before we can ratify the treaty signed last November. We are required to ratify it before 1st January next, otherwise it could be held that the British Government are unilaterally abandoning the tunnel.
The consequences of such a unilateral abandonment would be financial penalties. As the White Paper made clear last


year, the consequences would vary according to the circumstances of abandonment. If, in particular, the four parties agreed that the project was no longer worthwhile, or the companies decided to withdraw, then, as the White Paper made clear, private risk money would be lost and the Governments would have to meet their guarantees.
Work to the end of the current phase II is likely to cost about £30 million. Little of that could be saved by abandonment. Indeed, since virtually all the contracts are now let, the cancellation charges, making good and so on, would account for the greater part of any savings arising in the few remaining months of work. Exact figures are obviously a matter for commercial negotiation and the House will not expect me to attempt a closer estimate now, but any such savings are overshadowed by the fact that abandonment by the British Government now would, under the terms of Agreement No. 2, constitute Government abandonment in which the companies qualified for compensatory multipliers of their risk money amounting to about £6 million, to be borne, along with other costs, equally by the British and French Governments. Even if abandonment were contemplated, it must be recognised that the consequences of abandonment would outweigh any apparent savings, to say nothing of the fact that the option to proceed would be immediately closed.
That is why the Conservative Party presented the Bill which is the subject of the motion and why we decided in April to go along with it. It is necessary to have the powers that the Bill confers, without necessarily exercising them, before we can ratify the treaty which is necessary even to preserve the phase 2 studies and certainly without any commitment about what view the House may take on proceeding to the next stage. If the motion is not carried, therefore, we should have to introduce the Bill again in order to be able to comply with those agreements and the treaty which were signed last November.

Mr. John Prescott: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's difficulty about getting information at this stage. Is he saying that the agreement must be signed by 1st Janu

ary, because my information is to the contrary? Surely it is possible for the two parties to the treaty to agree to put this date back.

Mr. Mulley: It is possible, by agreement, for the ratification date to be deferred, but in order to get that deferment without penalty we should have to show that we were exercising our best endeavours to proceed. The purpose of this procedural motion is to that end. It may be that even if the motion is carried today and even if every subsequent stage of the Bill is carried through with the utmost expedition, the Bill will not become law by 31st December. The exceptional circumstances which I am asking the House to take into account in considering the motion—that we have had two General Elections this year—will also be in the minds of our partners with whom we should have to discuss the question of deferment.

Mr. Peter Rost: I am sure that the Minister would not want to mislead the House. Surely he is not suggesting that the commitment to spend £30 million was taken without the approval of Parliament, which is what is implied in what he just said.

Mr. Mulley: The authority for phase 2 was taken by the Government of which the hon. Member was a supporter in a Bill that passed through all its stages in the House. Unless the hon. Member was missing on that occasion, he voted for it in the Lobby. This decision by the House had already been taken before we became the Government. Money had been committed and contracts let, and that was obviously a factor which we took into account in deciding to continue in the way that we did.
I am aware that the proposed high speed rail link between London and the tunnel portal will not be far from the minds of a number of hon. Members, particularly those with constituencies in the South East, in considering the motion. Indeed, one right hon. Member has suggested that this might determine the Lobby in which he and other hon. Members find themselves tonight.
The motion and the Bill do not and are not intended to deal with the powers necessary for the construction of the link.


Those powers must be secured by a completely separate private Bill to be introduced later by British Railways. Decisions are however due to be taken shortly about a number of aspects of the rail link so that its route can be determined and authority given to the Railways Board to complete preparation of its Private Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I recognise entirely that the General Election has tended to delay consultation with local authorities on key aspects of the route and its London terminal. We are, how-over, giving close attention to the link so as to avoid any unnecessary extension of the anxieties of residents which were represented to us so forcibly by a delegation from Surrey and Kent Action on Rail—that is to say, SKAR—before the election, a deputation which was so ably led by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) accompanied by some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to reports in the Press yesterday which seemed to indicate that because British Rail was paying so much attention to the proposal for the Channel Tunnel and, previously, to the now dead Maplin plan, it was not able to pay so much attention to the high-speed development and planning of existing routes? Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that there will be no delay on these routes while this Bill is going forward?

Mr. Mulley: I have not seen that report but I shall take the matter up with British Rail. Some of British Rail's plans for increasing speeds on some of its routes will be expensive and this will have to be taken into account in its investment plans. I can certainly give my hon. Friend an assurance that whatever decision is taken—and no decision has been taken either about the Channel Tunnel or the rail link—it will not in any way prejudice the money available to British Rail for its services in other parts of the country. As was the case under the previous Government, this rail link is treated as a special item in British Rail's accounting and is in no way taken into account in its investment plans.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will take careful note of all the

points raised in the debate, but I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that this is a procedural motion and that if it is passed it will in no way commit the Government to any future view about the tunnel. It will provide adequate further opportunities whether to hon. Members or to people outside who are concerned to put their points to a select committee. Therefore I hope that the motion will be agreed so that we may go on collecting the necessary information that the Government and the House want before coming to a final view about a very important project. I do not think anyone would want to take a decision of substance by the side wind of a procedural motion.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I say that the length of his speech today makes the Government's original decision to try to get the motion on the nod look a bit strange. He went into the matter in depth so that the original hope of getting the motion on the nod appears optimistic in the extreme.

Mr. Mulley: May I clear up that point? I would have been even more surprised than the right hon. Gentleman if the motion had gone through on the nod. In the proper course of events, if the House had been in session, the motion should have come at the end of the last Session and it was therefore necessary to give notice of it at the earliest opportunity, which was on the first day after the Queen's Speech. I never expected it to go through on the nod.

Mr. Peyton: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is wholly sincere in what he says, but I do not believe that that represents the view of the Government who looked exceedingly disappointed when they did not get the motion on the nod the other day.
I do not wish to detain the House at length. This is not the moment to go into the merits of the project. The fact that I have changed from one side of the House to another does not mean that I have changed my view about those merits. There is no need to go into them this afternoon because there will be other occasions to do so. I make one exception to that when I say that the Channel Tunnel provides the chance of a new epoch for


the railways and it would be sad if they were denied that opportunity.
The real purpose of the motion.—[Interruption.] I am doing my best to help the right hon. Gentleman, but I must say that it will be a long time before I would want to help some of those hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway. There are times when I feel slightly sorry for the incumbents of the Government Front Bench, and this is almost always when I look at those hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.
The purpose of the motion is to save the money and time of those who have taken part in the cumbrous and ponderous procedures to which we subject legislative measures of this kind.
The right hon. Gentleman did not leave me clear as to what Sir Alec Cairncross will be doing, what his terms of reference will be and whether he will be having assistance of others. The right hon. Gentleman might, I think, have been in a position to tell us to which question Sir Alec will be addressing himself, and whether he will have the benefit of the advice of other people.

Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend has noted this point and I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if he were to deal with it fully when he replied to the debate.

Mr. Peyton: Kindness prevents me from pressing that point now.
I say to the Government that there is a great deal of interest and concern among my right hon. and hon. Friends on behalf of those people who live in the area of the Channel Tunnel and in the area of the line of the rail route. I greatly hope that sufficient time will be given for this matter to be discussed and for the anxieties of those involved to be aired adequately.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised, during the course of further discussion of the project as a whole, to pay fairly frequent visits both to Kent and to the area of the rail route, so that people can at least have the satisfaction of expressing to him personally their great anxieties. It is no good talking about open government and then when an opportunity arises of allowing people to talk to the Minister and express their anxiety, not taking

that opportunity. It would be fatuous if such an opportunity were not taken. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would earn for himself the gratitude and appreciation of all concerned if he took it upon himself to personally do what I suggest.
I remind my right hon. and hon. Friend that this is purely a procedural motion. However, it gives them an opportunity to express the deep anxieties felt by their constituents who live in the area of the rail route. It is right that my right hon. and hon. Friends should take this opportunity, but I am sure that they will bear in mind that there will also be other opportunities to deal with the merits of the project.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I can understand the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) because we are this afternoon debating what is, in effect, his Bill. He was the Minister of Transport when this proposal was first introduced. Nevertheless, I respect the fact that he does not appear to have changed his mind all that much, and I hope that he will accept that I have not changed my mind either. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that on the previous occasion when the Bill was introduced I was sitting where he is now seated and I was advising my colleagues in the Labour Party to vote against the Bill.
When the Bill was reintroduced for a second time, during the period of the last Labour Government, though the Government supported it, I voted against it, and I intend to vote against this motion tonight.
I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister has at last found a report from a Committee of the House which will support the procedure in which the Government intend to indulge tonight. Having seen some of the reports of Select Committees of this House, I believe that if one wants to find a justification for almost anything done in the House, one can do so. But to go back as far as 1929 to find a decision which relates to what the Government intend to do tonight indicates that my right hon. Friend's Department must have been looking very hard into this question.
We have been told about the precedent of the Morrison Committee, but I


am sure that it is appreciated that the motion connected with that Committee, and with the Transport Bill involved, was introduced before the Bill itself was introduced into the House. Now the Government propose to introduce a retroactive and, to my mind, regressive motion which deals with a proposal which has already been introduced into the House a couple of times. For my right hon. Friend to quote the so-called constitutional precedent of the Bill relating to the Morrison Committee is not in accordance with the procedure laid down in 1930.
I accept my right hon. Friend's point that if we pass the motion—I hope we shall not—it may save petitioners who wish to petition in favour or against the Bill the expense of petitioning again. But I point out to my right hon. Friend, and I think he is sensible about this point, that we now have an entirely new House of Commons. The Bill was first introduced two Parliaments ago. We now have an entirely new group of Members on both sides of the House. These new Members are bound to have completely different feelings from those hon. Members who were present when the Bill was first introduced last December.
Furthermore, we now have a completely changed economic situation. We are now told that we have an overall deficit on capital and current accounts on our balance of payments of about £4,000 million. That was not the position when the Bill was first introduced. We now have the possibility of yet another increase in oil prices. That was not the position when the Bill was first introduced. We now have the possibility—so we are told, in relation to tomorrow's announcements—of even more public expenditure cuts. That was not the position when the Bill was first introduced.
It is said that we can save the petitioners money. But the House would do itself far more credit, and we as politicians would do ourselves far more credit if we took account of the changing economic and political priorities that have arisen since the Bill was first introduced.

Mr. John Wells: The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that British taxpayers' money is not involved in this. The capital would be raised on the world

equity and money markets by the Channel Tunnel Company.

Mr. Huckfield: I have asked over and over again that if the project is so good, if it is really the project to end all projects, why does it need a Government guarantee?

Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman asks why it needs a Government guarantee. It is for the simple reason that one cannot raise money, by going around the Stock Exchanges of the world, for an international project if it is to have the equivalent of trustee status unless it does have a Government guarantee.

Mr. Huckfield: I have always thought that the Stock Exchange was a rather irrelevant casino. I would wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman if he is saying that the Stock Exchange is irrelevant in this context.
There have been several projects more hazardous than this that have not needed a Government guarantee. There has been, for instance, exploration of North Sea oil resources.
I suspect that the real reason is that the Minister and his right hon. Friends have given several undertakings. But by the sound of things the undertakings which have been given to the companies are not fixed and are not irredeemable. They do not have to be signed and in place by 31st December. Such undertakings do not justify the kind of railroading process that is now taking place. In view of the changed circumstances I believe that some of the undertakings which may have been given should not override the serious nature of the economic circumstances now facing us.
Throughout the year there is approximately 84 per cent. excess capacity on existing Channel crossing services. Throughout the year only 16 per cent. of the total capacity provided by the present ferry and hovercraft services is used. When there is more than 75 per cent. excess capacity on given services there is an argument not for engaging in new investment but for changing the pricing policy of the present services. I am endorsed in that view by the recent report of the Monopolies Commission. It was suggested that there should be certain price alterations in Channel ferry


services. It was suggested in that independent report that there should be a reduction in the number of services provided for crossing the Channel. The commission, which is in possession of all the relevant facts and circumstances, recommends not new investment but a reduction of existing investment.
Even since the Bill was first introduced into the House the total estimated cost of the project has increased from £846 million to over £1,500 million. All the calculations upon which the Bill and the motion are based are founded on the assumption of an annual rate of inflation of 5 per cent. I am sure that even the most ardent devotee of the social contract would not claim that we shall have a rate of inflation of only 5 per cent. The fact is that all the calculations are going forward on that basis.
Further, the calculations have all been made on the assumption that we shall have stable rates of interest and that we shall not have a change in the exchange value of the pound. However, we are once more hearing talk about devaluation of the pound. The calculations have been made on the assumption that we shall not have any unforeseen geology and that there will be no changes in the design specification.
Those are all reasons for a full, frank and thorough-going discussion, thereby allowing all those involved to consider the procedure from scratch.
Another matter which needs serious examination is that the miraculous success of this project is based on the assumption that 75 per cent. of holidaymakers with cars will switch to a means of crossing the Channel which will be 42 per cent. more expensive and which will offer the possibility of saving approximately half an hour. I know that holidaymakers may feel that they have a bit of money to throw around from time to time, but I suggest that this is not such a time. Surely we cannot put forward the suggestion that we should engage upon this kind of investment when approximately 75 per cent. of the beneficiaries will be holidaymakers with cars. That is not the kind of investment in which this country should be engaging.

Mr. A. P. Costain: From where does the hon. Member get his 42 per cent. and on what facts is that percentage based?

Mr. Huckfield: Perhaps the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) will care to look at the figures put forward by the British Channel Tunnel Company. That is the company which is supposed to be making the money on this project. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the rates that it intends to charge compared with the ferry-operators' rates he will see that there is a price differential of approximately 42 per cent. On the 1973 figures there is an average of £25 for crossing the Channel by ferry and an average of £35 for crossing the Channel by means of the tunnel. Therefore, we have a £10 difference between ferry and tunnel prices even on 1973 prices. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that by 1980 or 1983 the differential could be even wider.
No doubt we shall be told that the tunnel project will in some way benefit the railways. I respect the sincerity of my hon. Friends who believe that to be so, but how can such a project be assumed to benefit the railways when the treaty that we have already signed with the French specifically forbids discrimination by the Channel Tunnel operating authority in favour of one specific rode of transport? In other words, any suggestion that we can in some way artificially make the railway rates lower or any suggestion that we can used discriminatory tariffs in favour of the railways is ruled out by the treaty that we have already signed.
What better evidence could this country want of the real intentions of the operators who will use the tunnel than that all the big haulage companies and the big international transport companies are already seeking planning permission to build massive road haulage depots in Kent near to the entrance to the tunnel?

Mr. Peter Snape: Will my hon. Friend not concede that once the high-speed rail link is built, if it is to be built, and becomes part of the rest of the railway system, the traffic will be sent directly into the tunnel system despite the price difference? I am prepared to accept my hon. Friend's somewhat questionable figures, but on speed alone the railway services will be far more attractive for freight traffic than the existing services.

Mr. Huckfield: I know that my hon. Friend has spent many years on the


railways. I pay tribute to the service that he has given in that occupation. I am sure that even he will realise that the main difficulty is that the Continental railway wagons will not be able to get any further than London. His argument will hold water only if we alter the whole of the railway system. I do not believe that the Bill proposes to do that. The great difficulty for the railways is that it will only be possible to get through-traffic to London. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that this argument would hold water only if the whole of the British railway system were to change its gauge to that of the continental system.
I believe that we should not pass this motion because there are far more important social priorities to which the Government should be directing their attention. I was told in a parliamentary reply last December that nearly 500 of my constituents had been waiting for admission to Nuneaton hospitals for more than a year. I have been told time and time again that we cannot have the new primary schools that my constituents need, and we have also been repeatedly told that the National Health Service needs another injection of at least £500 million. My hon. Friends have also said how much more we ought to be spending on the needs of the disabled and on the social services. These needs are far more pressing, and I submit that they constitute much more deserving priorities to which the Government should be attending, and to which we as Socialists should be attending.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Will my hon. Friend explain how the use of a drilling machine under the South Coast will either build more schools and hospitals, or provide more hospital beds or teaching facilities?

Mr. Skinner: Use Costain's cement.

Mr. Huckfield: I am not an advocate of any particular brand of cement, but any housing chairman, who has had the misfortune to try to place a tender to build council houses when there is a by-pass scheme five miles away, will be aware of the difficulties of obtaining labour or resources in such competing circumstances. My hon. Friend, the Mem

ber for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) advanced the argument, which I know can be advanced, that it will require only 10 per cent. of the labour and resources of the construction industry. He must realise that 10 per cent. of the construction resources of this country—[Interruption.] These are the figures quoted in the official reports which even favour this project. My hon. Friend must realise that 10 per cent. of the construction industry's resources in this country—if we could devote them to it—could practically rebuild every major hospital in this country.
Finally, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister, whose sincerity I respect, has some personal doubts about this project, because he was with me on the Opposition Front Bench when we first advised the Labour Party to vote against the Bill. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister would dearly like to see a way of getting off the hook. I also believe that the French Government and the French President would like to see a way of getting off the hook. I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight to join me in the Lobby, thus not only getting my right hon. Friend off the hook by opposing the motion but also making sure that the Government make a start by laying down some firm, Socialist priorities for the next five years.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: This is, I suppose, by way of being a second maiden speech. I should first like to thank those hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House who have welcomed me back. Perhaps an enforced absence of seven and a half months has in some ways recharged my batteries.
I should also like—and this is a very appropriate debate in which to do this—to make a reference to my predecessor which is more than a mere courtesy, because Bill Deedes, as we all know, has not, as is the case with so many hon. Members, either been defeated in the heat of battle or gone to retire to some lush pasture, but is still greatly involved and is now the editor of one of the great national newspapers. I know that both in my constituency and in this House Bill Deedes gave 24 years service, and if anyone here can equal that, he will have done very well indeed. Also,


from a personal point of view, he could not have been more helpful to me or to his constituents about this great question which we are discussing this afternoon.
I must admit that the seven and a half months fled rapidly, because the speech just made by my personal friend, if not my political friend, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) contained the same sort of nonsense he was talking about a year ago. For those of his hon. Friends who may feel that this is an embarrassment to him, I should perhaps point out that we were born within a few miles of each other.
All the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made about the changed situation and the changed circumstances are answered by the Cairncross Committee. Presumably it is the committee's job to look at the inflationary situation, the energy situation and everything else. As his right hon. Friend has already made clear, if the motion is lost today it will make very little difference for the immediate future. It may well cost more money rather than less.
This House, on Third Reading of the Bill and, indeed, the Government and the French Government at a later stage, at the end of phase II, will be able totally to reassess the situation. It seems, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman has been guilty of jumping the gun before any of us knows the situation. If we do know, then why was the Cairncross Committee set up? It is that committee's job to look into these matters.
Just because I have changed from the Government side of the House and am now in Opposition, and because I am now a Member of Parliament for a constituency that is as badly affected by the rail link as any, I have not changed my views on the desirability of the tunnel going ahead, assuming that it makes some sort of economic sense. I think that for the reasons put forward by my right hon. Friend, and by the Minister for Transport, we should be doing a nonsense if we went back to square one today.
One has to consider the situation of the local authorities concerned; and, as yet, little has been said about them. The leader of the Kent County Council has written to all hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies. It is a question, not just of money—important though

that is with the pressure on ratepayers—but of staff and expertise. All of us in the South-East are worried about the environmental effects of the rail link. We want our local authorities at both district and county level to be able to concentrate their minds when that link comes to be discussed. If we have to go back to square one and go through all the procedures again, it will cost our ratepayers a great deal of money—I am a Kent ratepayer myself—and involve the staffs of the various county and district councils in a great deal of work at a time when they ought to be looking after the real problems of the rail link.

Mr. Roger Moate: Surely they will petition only if they feel that there is something worth petitioning about? They do not have to go through the procedure if they feel they have achieved all they could achieve by their earlier petitioning. If it is good investment to spend the money, it would be good for the ratepayers of Kent.

Mr. Speed: My view is that it is not good to duplicate it. My hon. Friend does not know necessarily what the situation would be if one had to reintroduce a Bill and start from scratch. If we say today that the motion should be passed and the Bill should go through its various stages in this House and another place, one of the things that worries many of us is how that will affect the rail link which is a fundamental part of the whole project. I believe that there is an analogy here with the way we progress our roads in this country. In supporting the right hon. Gentleman, and believing that this motion should be passed, I hope I shall not stray out of order in drawing to his attention the fact that if we could get the rail link right this would give us the time to get a proper answer to the very real worries of my constituents and those of many of my hon. Friends.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have a situation where, when one is to build a new road, one starts with the new public participation procedures which I understand he is continuing in the way started by the last Government. These procedures are at an early state and give the public proper information on the horizontal and vertical alignment of roads, an estimate of the costs, and an analysis of various other


problems. The roads in their design and construction by the road construction units in the Department require and command a multi-disciplinary approach. In other words, right from the start, there are people in the Department and in the RCUs who are not only road engineers but landscape architects, environmental and noise experts, and so on. It is my criticism of British Railways, and certainly one of the aspects that will be running alongside this Bill, that they do not apparently have at the present time this multi-disciplinary approach. The Royal Institute of British Architects highlighted this in its report a few months ago.
After the public participation when the route is selected by the Secretary of State, there is usually a form of public inquiry that takes places locally and then, when finally a decision is taken, all those aspects of the Land Compensation Act are brought into play to protect people from the effects of the road being built.
The procedures for building a new railway are Victorian. Indeed, they date back to Victorian times. I seriously question whether it is right that we should now be building new communication links of this kind with an old Private Bill procedure under the myth that railways are private entities. They are not. British Rail is having to rely on taxpayers' money for its very existence. I do not quarrel with that, but it is a fact of life, and British Railways cannot be compared with the old London North-Eastern Railway or the London-Brighton routes of the old Southern Railway.
Therefore, if this Bill is to proceed in the way I want, and the motion is to be passed tonight, a number of questions and suggestions need airing, which would certainly help me and, I believe, many other people who agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I will list them. Even if it is not possible for the Under-Secretary to reply to them all this evening, all of us in the South-East would like to have all the answers as soon as possible.
My first question is whether the Government are happy to have the Private Bill procedure used for a new rail link of this importance and magnitude. I believe that we are coming to the stage where such a project should be dealt

with by the sort of procedures we adopt for major road projects.
I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there may be some forms of public inquiry but that he could not be too precise. Participation is the word now, and building a new railway line today is comparable to the situation of 20 years ago when building new motorways—perhaps even worse. The situation 20 years ago resulted in the M6 around Birmingham and the Westway in West London—and we know all the problems that caused. The Department has taken many steps forward since then but unfortunately the railways have not.

Mr. Mulley: I hope I did not give the wrong impression, I do not think there is any statutory provision under which a public inquiry could be held. It would have to be by private legislation. Part of the trouble is that a major railway line has not been laid in this country since Victorian times. That is why the legislation has not changed. Certainly new legislation would be necessary before that situation could be changed.

Mr. Speed: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I jotted down his remarks and I think that he said that public inquiries are not necessarily part of the procedure. There might be some form of limited inquiry in compulsory purchase orders, but I do not know for sure. I understand his problems, of course, and he understands my constituents' problems. Nevertheless, I should like to know whether some kind of commission of inquiry or public inquiry is totally ruled out, because these issues are local. The sort of participation that we all talk about has to take place if the right hon. Gentleman goes ahead with the tunnel and if I am to support the project and to convince my constituents that justice is not only being done, but is being seen to be done.
Secondly, if public participation is to be meaningful, we must provide the right kind of information for local authorities and the public, with up-to-date maps—not maps that do not show major developments, as happened on the British Rail consultation document when a very large development in Ashford was not shown at all—showing, ideally, not only horizontal but vertical alignments, which


are extremely important, and thereby getting the public to feel that they really are being consulted and not being sold some sort of pup or being bulldozed into something they do not quite understand.

Mr. Fred Evans: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the Select Committee that inquired into the Channel Tunnel, completing its work just before the last Session ended, we heard strong objections from Kent County Council, Dover Borough Council, Shepway Council, districts councils, parish councils, Kent conservationists and car ferry operators, among others. It may be that the weight of evidence we heard was largely overcome by the persuasiveness of the Government barrister, Mr. Boydell; but surely the hon. Gentleman would not claim that those bodies did not participate in discussions at a lower level with their people before they reached the Select Committee?

Mr. Speed: Indeed, I am sure that they did. I am anxious that the motion should be passed tonight so that we shall have the time and resources to look properly at the Bill, if that is what it must be, though I should prefer some other form of inquiry.
The documents produced by British Railways in connection with this matter—they will, no doubt, be looked at by all sorts of people in due course—contain all kinds of inaccuracies. I am not saying they are deliberate, but there are inaccuracies. There is a lack of information about the alignment of the line, about where it goes into Tonbridge, whether it will go underground or overground, about noise contours, and so on. We talk of representations, but these can be made only with the right facts.
The Channel Tunnel company did provide a lot of facts, so there was a reasonable and successful stage on that Bill, and I am concerned that we should be at least as successful now in being able to put forward our views. I must tell the House that the information available to me is not sufficient for Kent County Council, Surrey County Council or the various boroughs involved to make representations on behalf of those whom they seek to represent.
The third point is important. The right hon. Gentleman has overall responsibility

for transport. Is he satisfied that British Railways will adopt the right kind of multidisciplinary approach in building the railway? Will the Lovejoy advice on the environment be published and not just put away in some dark corner of British Railways? My constituents and, I am sure, those of my hon. Friends will be interested in that.
If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about precedent, I can give him one, namely, the special arrangements that I was making, and which I believe he has continued, for the treatment of the environment as it was affected by the M54 passing through a sensitive area of Staffordshire—the Telford motorway. There is an analogy between the treatment of that motorway and the proposed rail link to many parts of Surrey and Kent.
Fourthly—and this echoes what some of my hon. Friends have already asked—can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that all the proposed environmental solutions, including tunnelling in parts of Surrey and Kent, and what I call the Ashford tunnel solution which has been put forward by local authorities and leading citizens in my area, will be looked at and not just brushed aside?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that economic factors will not be paramount in determining the lines and construction of this high-speed rail link? From his experience of motorways the right hon. Gentleman will know that, in many circumstances, it is necessary to spend a lot more money to get the right environmental solution, whether it be a cut-and-cover tunnel under Epping Forest to the M16, or whatever it might be. It would be wrong if purely economic justifications were to be considered and not enough consideration was given to environmental factors. I hope that the Minister will insist that, at an early stage, proper noise contour maps are published so that everybody may understand how they might be affected in this kind of situation.
We have had a lot of good information about the tunnel itself. Because I want all that to go forward and the work not to be wasted I shall support the Minister tonight, but he must understand that we have a responsibility to our constituents and that we have many nagging doubts in our mind—I put it no higher


than that—about whether everyone is coming clean on the high-speed rail link proposals, whether we have all the right information and whether the Minister, using all the resources of his great and powerful Department, will ensure that we achieve the best environmental solution. We want to see that people are put first, not last.
One matter that dismays me is that when we first talk about great projects there is a certain enthusiasm, but later that enthusiasm fades away. When I was Under-Secretary, not a day passed without people imploring me to get more goods on to the railways and off the roads, yet when a project of this magnitude is put forward that would achieve that end the great British people, in their strange way, want to eat their cake and have it, too. They point out that the project contains 101 snags.
I believe that there is a great future for the railways in the project. I believe, too, that we can get goods and people off the roads, which is something I want to see achieved. But to do that we must plan the link, as well as the tunnel, with imagination, foresight and skill. All those qualities exist. Ever since the war, whether in the redevelopment of its cities and airports or in the building of some of its earlier motorways, this country has, frankly, made a botch of the job. In recent years, particularly with the coming of the Department of the Environment, I believe that we have been getting better and more sensitive in those matters.
I want to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, and all of us interested in this, including British Railways, do not make a botch of the rail link. If we do, we shall never forgive ourselves. Many people are vitally concerned that we should get it right. I am a believer in the tunnel, provided that the economic aspect is right. We shall presumably know that in a few months' time. The House would do itself a grave disservice and make a non-sense by going back to square one at this stage. I implore the Minister to listen to the issues that I have raised about the rail link because, as I am a believer in the tunnel, perhaps my arguments will carry more weight than those of some of my hon. Friends who do not want the tunnel at any price.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The matter before the House is concerned with a project very distant from my own constituency and from Wales in general. Yet I believe that it intimately affects the life of Wales, and I am afraid that if it came into effect it would affect Wales adversely.
Wales is a peripheral province over in the far west, a province that has to compete with the English regions of the Midlands and South-East which are far better equipped with the necessities of all the infrastructure involved in the matter of economic competition and those factors that make economic development possible. It is natural that regions within 100 miles radius of London should be so much better equipped than we are. Power lies, after all, in the metropolis. We in the peninsula of Wales are a distant country indeed.
Railways, for example, are closely involved in the subject before the House today. We have heard of the improvement to a certain route that will be involved in the project. In Wales we have seen our railways decimated.
Wales is an exporter of electricity. We export approximately 16 million units of electricity per day. Yet not one mile of railway in Wales is electrified. British Rail has a great deal of interest in the Channel Tunnel project, and I am afraid that some of the money that should be invested in Wales in developing and electrifying our railways will go instead into a project of the kind being debated. Wales would then suffer.
I note that the debate is taking place on the day before the Budget debate. Some people fear that tomorrow we may hear cuts proposed in our transport and railway system, and once again Wales may suffer further cuts instead of development. We do not have a network of motorways, or any great network of dual-carriageway roads or even trunk roads, to make up for that deficiency in our transport system.
Until Wales has her own metropolis and her own centre of government so that we can organise these things for ourselves, we shall suffer whenever we are pushed further from the centre of economic gravity. That is what will happen if the tunnel comes into existence.
That is what has happened with Britain's entry into the Common Market. It is why we have opposed entry into the Common Market, and why I opposed it when I was last in the House. I was one of only three Welsh Members who voted against entry. I feared then the effects upon our agriculture, upon our steel and upon the possibilities of attracting new industry to Wales.
The same consequence would follow the creation of the Channel Tunnel. It would exacerbate our difficulties in Wales. They are already far too great, especially in a country without a government. We are a nation without a government. We have England's government in Wales, and that is our misfortune. It is high time we had our own government.
I want the Minister to tell us whether he has done something that was not done when we entered the Common Market. Before entry into the Common Market no examination was made, and no inquiry to see what the effects of entry would be upon Welsh life. Has any inquiry been made to see what the effect of the creation of a Channel Tunnel would be on our economy and upon Welsh life? I hope that the Minister will answer that question at the end of the debate.
For us, the Channel Tunnel takes its place among the great expensive prestige projects in which a succession of Governments have been involved. It takes its place for us with the Concorde. It was described in this week's Economist as an underground Concorde. That is how it should be looked at. It takes its place with the MRCA. It takes its place with the Polaris and the Poseidon, and those things which I do not think that England can afford. Certainly, the Welsh taxpayer cannot afford them.
Therefore, we in Wales have a great deal to lose from this project, and very little, if anything, to gain. That is why I fear the adverse effect upon our country. I hope that all those who have the interests of Wales at heart will join us tonight in the "No" Lobby as we vote against the motion, hoping in that way to prevent the implementation of the Channel Tunnel project.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not want to take too long over this particular subject, because if the motion is not with

drawn those of us who will be in the "No" Lobby believe that we shall have a better chance of defeating it if the vote takes place at 7 o'clock instead of 10 p.m. It might help if the word could get around.
The debate started with the Minister saying that it was in some way a procedural motion, perhaps drawing the wrong conclusion that some of us were against it because we felt that the way in which the Government initially tried to introduce this measure was wrong, and we were therefore excited and agog about this particular method. My only comment is that it is a precedent. The Minister admitted that today. It is significant that we are now embarking upon procedures of this sort, by which it is hoped to get the thing through on the nod within two years of our having entered the Common Market.

Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member in order in speaking twice in the same debate? In fact, in HANSARD of Wednesday 30th October, the concluding column states:
Mr. Skinner: We on this side of the House …
It concludes:
The Treasurer to Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Walter Harrison): I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
Therefore, the hon. Member is making a second speech on the same debate, because after that Question was agreed to, the following words appear:
Debate to be resumed tomorrow."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th October 1974; Vol. 880, c. 224–5.]
Today is now "tomorrow".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): The hon. Gentleman intervened on a point of order on that occasion. As I understand it, and as is often the case, it might have been an extended point of order, but he prefaced his speech with the words "On a point of order". I therefore call on the hon. Member for Bolsover to speak.

Mr. Wells: Further to that point of order. He did indeed begin his first utterance on a point of order, which he then concluded. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) then made a brief speech, and Mr. Speaker made a ruling. It started


with a point of order, but there were two brief speeches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might have seemed so to the hon. Gentleman, and it often does to me. I call Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will speak for the third time—or perhaps it is the fourth.
I was speaking about the question of the rather strange procedural motion which was used by the Government on that occasion. Most Government hon. Members do not complain about that. We expect the Government of the day to use the devices that are obtainable within the House of Commons. It would be honest of me to say that if I were in the Patronage Secretary's position, I should probably be doing things the same way. Most of the things which we do in this House are procedural matters anyway. The real power is outside; we interpret the events of the outside world, and our debates are in response. Literally everything we do is of a procedural nature.

Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because he is undertaking a fascinating constitutional exposition with which I wholeheartedly agree. But will he differentiate between the kind of motion that has been put down, and the fact that when many of us inquired when the motion would be put down, we were not told? I submit that there is a substantial difference between the actual motion which has been put down and the unfortunate fact that some of my right hon. Friends would not tell us when they intended to put down the motion.

Mr. Skinner: As I have already declared, had I been sitting on the Front Bench, and in an attempt to try to get the Bill—or something akin to it—through, then I would have adopted the same posture as they have adopted. I believe it is the back benchers' job in the present situation to find out how to prevent occurrences which they regard as unpleasant, but, more important, to change the procedures. That is what we should concentrate upon.
The lesson that we learn from all this is that there are ways and means by

which the Government can, if not in this instance, on some occasions at least, manage to bulldoze things through when the rest of us might not be fully aware of what is taking place. To some extent a new Member is placed in a somewhat delicate position by not having the opportunity of learning what those procedures are. The lesson, therefore, is that we should make sure that all or most of our attempts are concentrated upon changing many of the obstacles which prevent us from achieving things that we feel to be correct.
I do not complain about what the Government did. What I am complaining about is the motion itself and where it leads to. That is the real problem. The fight that we had in the election was about the language of priorities. It is true that night after night we hear most of the political pundicts telling us that we have the most gigantic crisis on our hands, and that once more the workers must pull up their socks, tighten their belts and do all the things workers have had to do in all the crises we have had since the turn of the century. They will have to drag the country back to a firm footing.
After all the talk about the secondary banks collapsing and the fact that we might be in the ludicrous position of baling out Slater Walker, has this ever been considered: here we have a motion on the Order Paper which, although it may be innocuous in itself. could lead to the spending—so my expert hon. Friends have told me—of at least £1,500 million. For some of us on this side of the House, that is what the motion is all about.
On the basis, therefore, that we have the problem of trying to get the country back on an even keel—for my part, certainly not to save the capitalist system—we are saying that we cannot afford to spend this amount of money. To that extent, we are saying that the motion should either be withdrawn by the Government or it should be defeated.
It would need a superhuman effort to achieve that end, but, if we do not achieve it tonight, I hope that the Government will take notice of what has been said in the debate and of the feelings of those who have not spoken, certainly of those on the Government benches. This is a matter fundamental


to the language of priorities of which I spoke earlier.
We are to have a Budget tomorrow. We are being told by the heavy quality Press that there will be cuts everywhere, that the schools projects in Whitwell, in Clowne, in Cresswell in my constituency, and the Chesterfield Royal Hospital, which badly needs replacing, will have to stand aside. I hope to God that what we are told turns out to be wrong. All these fears arise as a result of the so-called crisis which we are now facing.
I say that this is misguided policy. We cannot, however, judge on that matter, as we have not yet heard what the Chancellor has to say. But we are bound to take note of the constant concentration by the Press upon certain areas where cuts are due to take place. A Government Whip who was appointed fairly recently—he is an ex-railwayman—is quoted in the newspapers today as saying that he regards the rail cuts as serious, not merely in principle but for him. I reckon that he is perhaps privy to some of the things we are only hearing rumours about at present. That is not to say that he knows, but it suggests that he perhaps smells something wrong in the proposals regarding expenditure for railways.
We are, therefore, bound to feel strongly about a proposal to spend £1,500 million on the Channel Tunnel. It is a question, not merely of the motion itself, but of the whole idea that we are embarking upon spending this money when we have an ideal opportunity now to get rid of the project.
It is well known that there are some people in the Cabinet, and many in the Government, who are against the idea of the Channel Tunnel. It is my guess that there are occasions when back benchers can rescue them from their collective responsibility. It might be considered a bizarre idea, but in private many of them say that the idea of the Channel Tunnel is not for them. Therefore, we have this great responsibility tonight to get rid of the project once and for all.
I am told that the settling date is 31st December.—[Interruption.] "Not necessarily", I hear my expert hon. Friend say. I am certain that he is correct. It is important to recognise that if we manage to get beyond that date and if the parties to the treaty, namely, ourselves and France, have to put forward

an alternative proposal, we are getting nearer the date when we are likely to get the referendum. So I do not believe that we can completely dismiss the old Market phobia from our minds.
For those reasons, I believe that we have a job to do tonight, not to take part in any rebellion but to rescue our Government from the folly on which they have embarked and which they did not even have the audacity to include in the Queen's Speech. Had it been so important a measure, surely it would have ranked amongst the 26 Bills that were laid before us. If it had been as important as that, not only would it have been included but it would have been one of the matters brought before the House soon to be debated.
That is our job tonight. Somebody must take positive action to end the uncertainty that has surrounded this measure since it was introduced into the House. I believe that it is our job on this side—together with any others, wherever they may come from, who want to join us in the Lobby—to kill the Bill tonight.

5.12 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: It is perhaps unfortunate that there should have been three speakers from the non-Conservative benches all opposed to the tunnel, when one understands that the Government have a Whip on to persuade their Members to go into the Lobby in favour of the motion.
It is important that we consider the realities of the situation. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that this project might cost £1,500 million, and he repeated the figure several times. A far more likely figure is that of £846 million set out by the Channel Tunnel Company, that is, £468 million at 1973 prices, plus £192 million for finance and interest charges, plus £186 million for inflation. With this figure for inflation, it must be borne in mind that the revenue that can be expected in inflated terms would be greater than the revenue currently expected.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) said that it was a prestige project. We must be realists about this. It is not a prestige project. It is a sound, deeply researched and desirable, viable transport undertaking. It is a project that


will be beneficial to future generations. The inflation that will overtake succeeding ferries and hovercraft will add to the price of future ship and hovercraft building, but this tunnel, once built, will be built for generations to come. It is not a pie-in-the-sky project but a serious and viable project.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) had his figures completely wrong, and I believe that he must have misheard my intervention during his speech, though I did not bother to intervene again. There must be Government guarantees for these bonds or nobody in the money markets of the world will buy them. They will be the equivalent, in international parlance, of British trustee stock, and unless they have Government backing they will not have that status and could not be sold in the stock exchanges of the world. It is imperative that the Government give the project their backing.
I want to turn strictly to the procedural motion, because we shall have many opportunities to debate the broader aspects in the future. There are certain dangers in a procedural motion of this kind, because a subsequent Government might want to resuscitate from Parliament to Parliament some highly undesirable measure that had fallen at an election. This, being a hybrid Bill, is in a special and particular category. It is essential that the interests of those who have already presented their case should be protected and that they should not have the cost of appearing twice. Again, the timetable is essential. We must press on within this limited timetable if we are to have before us the necessary facts and figures to decide whether the ultimate project is to proceed.
But the ultimate project itself will not cost the British public a great deal, as I have already made clear. Furthermore, it will not be costly in resources. One should get into perspective the resources that will be used. Four main items will go into its construction. First, there is the labour force. Only some 2,000 British people will be engaged at the British end. Secondly, only some 38,000 tonnes of steel will be used, which is less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. of the United Kingdom steel production. Thirdly, only 123,000 tonnes of cement will be used,

which is half of 1 per cent. of the total United Kingdom production. Again, this somewhat refutes the earlier argument of the hon. Member for Nuneaton. Lastly, only some 450,000 tonnes of sand and gravel will be used, which is 1 per cent. of the total United Kingdom production per annum. Therefore, the use of scarce resources is negligible. The boring equipment which will be used is well advanced; the manufacture of it is well in hand. I believe that the Channel Tunnel project is economically sound, desirable and financially sensibly based.
Having said all that in favour of the project and of the motion, I believe that we should have a critical look at the conduct of British Rail, which has been extremely slow to assuage the fears of the constituents of those of us who represent south-eastern constituencies. That is why so many Kent and Sussex Members are present, why several have already intervened and why others will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The fear is simply that of the unknown, and British Rail has been most unreasonable and unco-operative in going out to meet our constituents. It is a sorry contrast with the conduct of the Channel Tunnel Company, which has been exemplary. The company has made it quite clear that it will give good compensation to people who suffer—indeed, more compensation than they are entitled to by law. British Rail has made no such offer, although the property of tens of thousands of people is blighted, or temporarily blighted.
Our part of the country is an area of high population mobility. Many people bought houses at the peak of the housing market last year, and they now see uncertainty and blight hanging over them. I believe that British Rail has to come a great deal cleaner about this. Furthermore, the Chairman of British Rail, who makes appointments with Members of Parliament at 10 o'clock on a Friday morning, is either a wily old parliamentarian—as we know he is—or else he thinks we are a lot of twits. I suggest that the Chairman of British Rail should mend his manners in dealing with hon. Members of this House.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Peter Snape: We have had a somewhat bizarre


debate so far. Even after the comparatively short time that I have been a Member of the House, I never thought that I would live to see my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) defending so violently the traditions of the place.

Mr. Skinner: I did not.

Mr. Snape: However, let me say at the outset, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), that I was employed by British Railways before being elected to the House. My interest—some of my hon. Friends have said already that it is my only interest—is the future prosperity of the railway service. It does not arise from any personal financial reason, but I happen to believe that railway transport is the finest mode of surface transport today and will become increasingly important in the future.
Various figures have been thrown at us from various parts of the House about the total cost of the Channel Tunnel project. Clearly, when dealing with a project like this, it is difficult to be precise about the effects that inflation and other side effects will have on the total cost of the project, but they ought to be considered.
Some of my hon. Friends mentioned misuse of public resources. They should remember that in the context of this business we are not talking about any public money. We heard from the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) about the financing of the Channel Tunnel project. [Interruption.] Obviously there will be a great deal of public money involved on the construction of the high speed rail link from the tunnel terminal to London.
It could well be argued, I concede immediately, that there are perhaps better priorities for public money than increasing expenditure on the railway system.

Mrs. Renée Short: Or private money, too.

Mr. Snape: But I remind my hon. Friends—I seem to be addressing most of my remarks to my hon. Friends—that in the manifesto on which we have just fought two elections we said that we should hope to see more investment in the British Rail network. We said also that we were keen to see far more heavy

freight transferred from the road system on to the railways.
I find it a twisted argument to say, on the one hand, that we demand that in the election manifesto and, on the other hand, to say that there are better priorities for the use of public money than spending on our railways.
Again, I make no apology for reminding my hon. Friends that the Channel Tunnel will not cost anything in public money. If any hon. Member on either side likes to come up with some figures, I should be delighted to give way.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Guarantees.

Mr. Snape: That is not the same. The hon. Gentleman served with me on the Select Committee and forcefully expressed his concern about the guarantees. But that is not the same as saying that there is public money involved in the construction of the tunnel. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not argue about that.

Mr. Stainton: What about the rail link?

Mr. Snape: I have already dealt with the rail link to some extent. No one can build a rail link without its costing money. That is a major item of public expenditure. Hon. Members opposite—some of them still wish to speak—will bring up the problems that the rail link will cause to their constituents, and it is proper that they should discuss them in the House. However, I note that the management of British Rail itself has come under considerable criticism for its attitude.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) talked about planning procedures regarding new railway lines. I only wish that the Department of the Environment, in which he served for some time, were as keen when it came to building motorways for the views of the general public to be heard as it appears to be on the question of the rail link.

Mr. Speed: If the hon. Gentleman had made that remark four or five years ago I would have agreed 100 per cent. with him. But 18 months ago new participation procedures were introduced by the Department of the Environment. I introduced them in this House and they have


started to work successfully. He will know from his own part of the world, the M6 for example, that the public were not consulted. That is now a changing situation, introduced by the last Conservative Government and followed up by this Government. We have made good progress on the roads.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman leaps to the defence of the last Conservative Government—

Mr. Speed: The Department.

Mr. Snape: Perhaps we can say, I hope fairly, that the general public today does not share his apparent complacency about motorways and road building. It has long been the practice of the Department of the Environment, which it appears to be carrying through despite the new procedures, not to talk about motorways running from A to B. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the M6 motorway. That started life as the Preston bypass. It now stretches from Coventry well into Scotland. When we talk about the rail link we are talking about the whole length of the link. Obviously there are a great number of people to consider and a great number of hon. Members who wish the fears of their constituents to be considered.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport recently opened the last link in a motorway stretching from Liverpool to Hull. I never remembered any planning procedures for the residents from Liverpool to Hull, so that they could object to this cross-country motorway. That is not the way things are done with motorways. We get a localised inquiry. A gentleman from the road construction unit will come along and say to local residents, "I am sorry, just a few houses will come down. But this will take all the traffic from your High Street and put it on the bypass." They are always bypasses, never motorways. It takes some time before the penny drops and someone adds up all the bypasses and discovers that they stretch from Liverpool to Hull. That is the difference between consultations on road development and railworks.

Mr. Speed: The hon. Gentleman must come up to date. I will give him chapter and verse. There was the M40 motorway, the A6 in Stockport, the Canterbury by

pass, the A27 in Brighton, the Chelmsford bypass. On all of these the public were consulted at an early date and their views listened to. They have taken part in the selection of a route.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. It is a little unfair, when there are so many hon. Members who wish to speak, that those who have had the opportunity to address the House should intervene at length. [Interruption.] It is not for me to say that speeches should be less provocative.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful for your guidance Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member and I can resume our battle later.
One subject that has not been mentioned so far is that of energy and our future energy resources. I anxiously await the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prestcott), who will no doubt tell us of the contribution that can be made by sea-going transport. By any stretch of the imagination and on any figures, it must be conceded that cross-Channel traffic will grow a good deal in the next decade. Irrespective of whether the tunnel is built, some road transport has to cater for this growth. If the tunnel is not built the resources expended on the expansion of existing modes of transport are likely to be at least as great as the cost under discussion for the tunnel and the associated railway.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Monopolies Commission report accepts that on current cross-Channel ferry services there is excess capacity of 86 per cent.? My hon. Friend repeatedly refers to this proposal as a great rail investment. Will he bear in mind that British Railways has only a 4·7 per cent. stake in the British Channel Tunnel Company?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is the second long interruption that the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has made, although he addressed the House. There is a long queue of hon. Members waiting to speak.

Mr. Snape: I do not know from where my hon. Friend gets the figure of 86 per cent. excess capacity. If he refers to the proceedings of the Select Committee on


the Channel Tunnel he will see that among the people giving evidence against the tunnel were the shipowners. We had the doubtful privilege of looking at various balance sheets and projections provided by those gentlemen at the time. To quote one example, Townsend Thoresen Car Ferries Ltd. plays a considerable part in the cross-Channel business and its profits went up by ten times in a decade although not one penny piece was paid in income tax—nor does the company intend to pay income tax in the foreseeable future. If that company can do that and still have 86 per cent. excess capacity, perhaps we should attract the management of Townsend Thoresen to British Rail.
The alternative to the tunnel with a high-speed rail link might in the future give hon. Members even greater cause for regret. We might conceivably end by having a tunnel and no rail link, which would be worse than having no tunnel at all. It might then be necessary not only to turn that part of the South Coast into a massive lorry park but to construct yet another motorway between the terminal and London. Perhaps the fears expressed by hon. Members about the high-speed rail link would then be doubled or trebled having regard to the noise, pollution and dislocation that such a motorway might cause.
According to the latest publication of the British Tourist Authority's Travel News, the ratio of tourists using the tunnel from the Continent is likely to be 6:4. To talk of a great drain from Britain to the Continent is pure conjecture.
I am greatly in favour of the project because of its likely effect on the future prosperity of the railway service. The railway industry has suffered a sad decline in the immediate pre-war years and since. The tunnel and the rail link constitute the first railway development this century. If we let this opportunity go by the board, I prophesy that the decline of the railway system is likely to continue. What happens then to some of the environmental considerations mentioned by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House?
The tunnel with its associated high-speed rail network is an essential part of our future transport strategy. If the House rejects the proposals it might well reflect in future that it made a wrong-

headed decision. It is essential that the Channel Tunnel and the rail network should be built, not only for the prosperity of the railway system but for the prosperity of the country.
I remind hon. Members who referred to the connection between the Channel Tunnel and the Common Market that shares in a channel tunnel company were quoted on the London Stock Exchange almost three-quarters of a century before the idea of the Iron and Steel Community was a twinkle in the eye of the post-war European statesmen. Europe will be there whether or not the EEC exists. I share with some of my hon. Friends their detestation of that bureaucratic organisation, but it is none the less essential that Britain should play its full part in transport planning and the use of resources. It can best do so by giving the green light to the Channel Tunnel and the expansion of the railway system.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not intend to keep the House long because I know that hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies badly want to get their word in. I have not the experience or legal knowledge to expound upon the precedent which was created in 1929, so I shall not speak against the motion.
Circumstances have changed a great deal since the White Paper on the Channel Tunnel Project was debated. At that time the Secretary of State, then speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, moved the following amendment to the motion which called for approval of the White Paper:
whilst not opposed in principle to a Channel Tunnel, declines to approve a ' rolling motorway ' scheme which threatens both regional and environmental objectives, pre-empts scarce resources, lacks the support of a fully integrated transport strategy, and in its financial arrangements subordinates the interests of the taxpayer to those of private capital; and demands an independent inquiry into alternative transport strategies, including a rail-only tunnel."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 1505.]
Those are the views which I have tried to express since I became the spokesman for the Liberal Party in March last. If those were the issues on which the right hon. Gentleman opposed the Channel tunnel then, surely he should be even more opposed to it today bearing in mind the economic situation.
My party divided the House on the Second Reading of the Channel Tunnel Bill, and I supported the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) who has been consistent in his opposition. The hon. Gentleman and I wished an inquiry to be held, and in Committee he expounded at great length certain other views on which we were in the minority of two.
There is concern in Kent about the rail link, particularly about the noise element. I have here a document lately prepared for the county council which shows that the rail link would cause unacceptable noise within 100 to 150 yards of the proposed line. If that information is correct, we should be far more concerned about what we are approving tonight.
There is also concern that many of the petitioners to the Select Committee did not have sufficient opportunity to express their views. I am not suggesting that the Committee did not do a thorough job, but the Defenders of Kent, a strong community body, felt that it had been unable to put its views as strongly as it wished. The body was ruled out of order on legal grounds on many of the issues it wanted to put forward.
I am still of opinion that the public inquiry should have been held. We are told that the reason why a public inquiry could not be held was the great hurry to get the Bill through, so that the treaty could be signed at the end of the year. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) told us that the understanding now is that there has been a change in France. There is a new President and it is believed that President Giscard d'Estaing is rather anti-Channel tunnel.
I should like to quote from the Journal of Public Transport published in Basle which commented as follows:
Valery Giscard D'Estaing is of the opinion that his country's image overseas will be better served by technologically superior vessels carrying the French flag to major seaports throughout the world than it is by a luxury liner drifting about in the Caribbean. This is in keeping with the sober politics of the French President who intends to abandon or put back other money-draining prestige projects such as Concorde, the Aerotrain and the Channel Tunnel.
We are entitled to ask the Minister when he replies to the debate to give

the House the latest estimate of the cost of the Channel Tunnel. Must we wait for the Cairncross report? What is the point of going ahead with the tunnel if we do not know that we are to build the rail link? Obviously there will be a great deal of trouble over that project.
Surely the right thing to do now, at top level, is to seek postponement of the project. I have never denied the fact that the Liberal Party believes in the rail link and the rail link only. However, I believe that there should be an inquiry into the rail link and the tunnel. When the economic situation has changed we may take a different view. If the Government are to spend £30 million on the project, then it is nonsense to abandon it entirely. I shall be going into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Bois-over (Mr. Skinner), and if he can arrange that it will be at about 7 o'clock I shall be delighted.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott: On this occasion I should declare an interest since I am a sponsored Member of the National Union of Seamen. I am clearly interested in what will happen to alternative transport systems in the event of the Channel Tunnel being built and what effect it will have on shipping. If it is to mean redundancies among seamen as a result of ships being withdrawn, then naturally that will be a great concern to me.
I do not intend this evening to consider solely the powerful shipping argument. Indeed, I have looked at this project on economic grounds and I must confess that I have become appalled at the scale of the operation. I should like to put before the House some of the facts of the situation and to say why the House should reject the motion when considering the proper use of public resources.
The Minister in opening the debate said that this was an unprecedented Bill. This is not a matter which the House is likely to ignore since a great deal of the time in this House we tend to be conditioned by precedent. I am all for throwing them over. On other occasions when we have looked at legislation, we have been told by the Front Bench how important precedent is. I hope that the Government will bear this point in mind


this evening and remember that the Bill at the time of the late Herbert Morrison involved a motion which was laid before the House before the Bill was considered rather than afterwards. That is an important point to remember. Therefore, we are taking an unprecedented step if the motion is passed.
If the motion is defeated, as I hope it will be, it will not interfere in any way with the cash flow needed for phase II of the exploration proposals. Furthermore, if we do not pass the motion tonight it will still be possible to ratify the treaty. There are certain requirements in the treaty which need to be observed and one includes the passing of the Channel Tunnel Bill which involves this House in certain actions. The important thing to remember is that the Bill is based on a treaty and seeks ratification of a treaty between two countries. It is the obligation that is embodied in the treaty which we are being asked to accept in the Bill. Because of the consequences involved in this process, I wish to point to various considerations bearing on tonight's vote.
Why do I personally wish to see the measure delayed? Let me start by saying that if we defeat the motion it will not mean that there will be no prospect of building the Channel Tunnel. All we shall do is to hinder and delay the process, but that in itself will not prevent the Channel Tunnel being built. It will perhaps have the effect of giving more time for reflection and to consider the huge issues involved. We shall then before we take a decision have an opportunity to consider the reports which the Government rightly have put in hand.
The trouble with projects of this kind is that once a decision is made they get carried along on their own momentum. Once schemes are embarked upon we are then suddenly told, "We have spent so much public money on this project, and it will be a waste of that expenditure if we advance no further". There has been a huge tooling project in respect of the machines to build the entrance to the tunnel and the whole thing has been carried along on its own momentum. This is what concerns a number of hon. Members.
Another reason for not accepting the motion lies in the guarantees in the treaty and indeed underlying the Bill itself. This relates to the financial provisions which

were agreed to in 1973. The importance of the guarantees is that they are the lynchpin of the argument whether the project will involve public expenditure or private expenditure. It has already been said in the debate that the money will be raised in the markets and will be guaranteed by public money, and that this is what must happen with this investment.
We all know that there is a great deal more money being raised by private enterprise on the private market in regard to oil exploration in the North Sea. In the early stages of the Channel Tunnel project the Labour Government considered the mix of public and private money and hoped that 30 per cent. of the money would be raised in the private market and that there would be some kind of financial discipline. But in the event the private market raised only 10 per cent. of the capital and was not prepared to raise any more, even though the terms offered were extremely attractive.
Therefore, we must consider a private funding of only 10 per cent. of the figure of £900 million, or £1,400 million, which is the later estimate. That latter figure takes into account the delays in the project, higher inflation and interest rates and all the rest of it. I shall not go into the formula, but I am sure the Minister is well aware of it. Therefore, about £900 or £1,200 million of the total figure will not come from the private market.
If the project makes a profit, the public return will be limited solely to the British Rail link investment. That in itself is enough reason to cancel the Channel Tunnel project. The project will involve an investment of over £400 million to build the link between London and the tunnel. This was estimated at £160 million only 12 months ago.
This will be public investment and will be guaranteed by the Government. It is not likely to come from the profits of British Rail. The key to the argument is the Treasury guarantee.
It has been argued today that if inflations raises the costs, then so it raises the revenue. The costs are certain because one has to build the project, but the revenue is much less certain. The problem is to tie in the guarantee with


the certainty or uncertainty of revenues. This is what we must consider when deciding whether this is a private or a public project.
If the project were solely a private venture, we should still argue about the environmental consequences, traffic flows, regional implications, and so on, but let us look at the matter solely on the grounds of public investment, with Treasury guarantees having to be observed. If the project is not profitable, then as an investment concept of £1,200 million it is a tremendous concept. If we are to invest on that scale, then the project will have to compete with other pieces of public expenditure and to observe the social priorities. The project has not met this criterion. It tends to masquerade as a profitable venture and on that ground it is hoped that it will get through with the project.
On Second Reading of the Bill as reported in column 966, the Minister said that the Bill must be passed to allow the project to be subjected to examination. So the Cairncross Committee was set up because we were not satisfied with the economic data provided by the consultants—who were also consultants to RTZ and the Channel Tunnel Company. That is not the most impartial way of checking such figures, which are very important. Setting up that committee rightly showed the Government's doubt about the projected revenue estimates.
But there is other evidence. The Minister also said on Second Reading that the project should be agreed so that it could be examined in a private Select Committee and in a public committee. The Chairman of the Select Committee was my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). The main argument from among the private interests came from shipping, which would face the major competition. The argument was that, in the traffic that the tunnel would be able to capture, as much as 80 per cent. of all tourist traffic presently going by ship even though the consultants accepted that the price differential would be 30 per cent., which would mean £10 or £11 less on a journey by ship.
One has to judge how the traffic might be apportioned, but the treaty which the

Bill ratifies clearly stated that the purpose of the tunnel would be
… to secure the best possible earnings on capital employed in the enterprise.
That is the purpose of the Bill. One has to bear in mind that the private interests will be represented on the tariffs committee and will be able to determine the tariffs in conjunction with the Government.
The problem that the Select Committee had to take into account was that it was the view of the shipping interests that there would be a 45 per cent. cut in the differential between the two systems and if that were so, 80 per cent. of the traffic would not go via the tunnel, bearing in mind that only 17 per cent. of the tunnel's revenue would come from freight—a point that British Rail should bear in mind when talking of this as a transportation problem. The rest would come from the tourist traffic—and goodness knows what will happen to that in the next few year. But they are banking on 80 per cent. of the revenue from that traffic.
If the shipping interests are right—the facts seem to bear them out, because they have built bigger and faster vessels and reduced the real costs, as the Monopolies Commission has confirmed—and if they can keep their share of the traffic, the tunnel will not get the revenue which is essential for it if it is to achieve a profit, as assumed by the consultants. If it does not make a profit, it will be under pressure to reduce fares and to run the alternative transportation, namely shipping, off the seas.
The shipping interests argued for a guarantee that the Channel Tunnel Company would not take this action to prevent public money, through the use of the Treasury guarantees, being poured into the project. Giving evidence on their behalf to the Select Committee was a Mr. Hill, an accountant with a company which advises on the finances of public and local authorities, who was associated with the Mersey tunnel. He has experience of tunnel financing. He said that the consultants' figures, which are heavily contested, were embodied in the treaty.
If those figures are suspect—after all, the Government have set up the Cairn-cross Committee—that means that we are asked to ratify a Bill whose financial implications are based on figures that


we do not accept or which are in considerable doubt. Alternatively, if the consultants' figures are right in these agreements, clearly there is no objection to putting in the guarantee that interests like shipping would not face a run-down in traffic due to unfair competition by the tunnel authorities.
If the figures are wrong, there is every possibility that public money will be used to the extent of £1,200 million.
Talking about the Treasury guarantees, the Select Committee said:
While the Committee thought it would not be proper to make such an amendment, they believe that the House, during the further passage of the Bill, should seriously consider the whole question of the operation of the guarantees, particularly with a view to preventing their possible misuse.
Nothing was done about that recommendation, and throughout the Bill's stages in the House, despite the public examination that the Minister called for, no change has so far taken place.
The railwaymen's case was valiantly argued in that Committee by one of my hon. Friends. The Minister said on Second Reading that one of the gaps in the Bill concerned the diversion of traffic from road to rail. The treaty specifically forbids any discrimination in terms of traffic. There is no guarantee that the Bill will be, in the words of some Conservative Members, a boost for rail. Although we all want some transference from road to rail, that would be against the express provisions of the treaty which the Bill would ratify. That is another reason for delaying the Bill. We would ratify a Bill against the Government's desire on traffic discrimination. It has been made clear that we need not be governed by the date of 1st January. It has been agreed that both parties can negotiate a new date.
Petitioners' costs of £40,000 have been mentioned. But that is money paid by the local authorities which opposed the Bill, some of which are on record as being ready to go through the same procedure again for further consideration of new data. The cost is not on the Government but on the local authorities, who are willing to go through the procedure. As for the £6 million maximum penalty, that is a highly marginal sum on a project like this, and it is doubtful whether we would face it. We are not exercising our responsibilities properly if we say that these

matters can be dealt with in another place.
As for British Rail, one of the first through transport networks was the freightliner and that did not produce many jobs for the railway lads; it put an awful lot of them out of work. The costs of the London link have risen from £160 million to an estimated £400 million. I hope that we shall be given some definite figure today of what it will cost British Rail to make this link down to Dover. We should delay the Bill until we know it.
I should like to see alternative British Rail investment on high-speed links. There is also a good deal of talk about cutting back on branch lines. Another hon. Member and I are concerned in just such a case at the moment. In Lloyd's List today, British Rail's traffic manager in Scotland is reported as having complained publicly that they want only £6 million to develop a rail network to service the North Sea operations but cannot get it. It is extraordinary to talk about spending £400 million in the South when they want only £6 million in Scotland to develop a network for the North Sea bonanza. I am sure that the Scottish National Party would support that point as well.
This project should not go ahead. British Rail has not considered it properly. It has not taken into account the write-off of its shipping profitability. Its ports will face serious losses and its hovercraft services will face severe competition. These are direct costs for British Rail. These are all matters that the House should consider in rejecting the motion—as British Rail have not considered them.
The regional consequences have not been properly considered either. When the consultants talk about a loss of £55 million to the air operators, that will mean losing a lot of aircraft investment. If there is a £100 million saving in ships, our shipyards lose that amount of orders. When the ports save investment amounting to £76 million that means that the North Sea and other ports will lose as much as 46 per cent. to 90 per cent. of unitised traffic and face further financial difficulties. All these interests have important secondary effects in that other industries depend upon them. They are labour intensive, not capital intensive, and they benefit the North and not the South. They are


all nationalised industries or are in the process of being nationalised.
Under the tunnel scheme 50 per cent. of the net revenue will be shared with the French, but at present Britain dominates shipping and air links between the two countries and gets the major share of the revenue. If the tunnel goes ahead we shall give half that money away. We oppose the project because the economic facts are against it and because we should await the Cairncross Committee's report. It is an unsatisfactory Bill which gives priority to the wrong thing in view of what we shall probably hear from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor tomorrow. Priority should be given to hospitals, schools, houses and other such things—part of a Socialist priority.

6.2 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: Like the hon. Members for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) and Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), I urge the House to reject the motion. The mere fact that the Bill has been before the House twice before and has been killed off by General Elections is no reason for assuming that third time round we should deem it to have been read the First and Second times and to have been reported from Standing Committee. That is a very dangerous precedent.
This is a new Parliament. Many hon. Members are here for the first time and took no part in the debates on the merits of the scheme over the last two years. I am totally opposed to the Bill and to the motion. Time is short, and I shall be brief in presenting the reasons why I believe that it would be in the national interests to reject the motion.
Much has happened since the Bill was first introduced, not least in economic and financial matters. I realise that the Government must try to get the Bill through Parliament by the end of the year because of an agreement that was made between the French and British Governments and the two Channel companies some time ago. I realise that they run the risk of incurring severe penalties amounting to several million pounds. Is it not true, however, that the climate in France is now totally different from what it was when the Bill was first introduced?
The French President, M. Valery Giscard d'Estaing, is not very enthusiastic about the scheme. He has already gone on record as saying that he would like to postpone the project, if not shelve it altogether. In view of that, what steps has the Minister taken to ask the French Government whether they will agree to the postponement of the signing of phase II?

Mr. Mulley: I discussed the matter with my French counterpart before the election. Obviously the situation in France will depend on what decision the House takes tonight. If the House takes an adverse view of the motion, I would not be in a very strong negotiating position.

Sir J. Rodgers: I should have thought that the Minister would be in an even stronger negotiating position. I know the French as well as the Minister does, and I suggest that if he were put in a position of not being a free agent and had to say that the House of Commons was his master, his position would be that much stronger.
Why is there such a rush? There must be doubts in the Government's mind or they would not have set up the Cairn-cross Committee. Before we take any steps should we not await the findings of the committee? We have only a few months to wait for those findings.

Mr. Mulley: Criticism of the timetable comes a little ill from the Conservative benches, although I know that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) was never an enthusiast for the project. All our difficulties stem from the timetable, agreement and treaty signed by the Conservative administration. We have already managed to find some extra time for the rail link Bill, but the agreement and treaty mean that unless we have the powers in the Bill we cannot confirm all the arrangements that the Conservative Government made.

Sir J. Rodgers: I certainly bear some of the collective guilt, but privately I opposed my side as I oppose the right hon. Gentleman. All three major parties in the last election referred to the economic and financial position and the gravity of the situation that faces this country. They all said that economies had to be imposed across the board. They all


agreed that there should be drastic cutbacks in public expenditure.
The question of precisely what is public expenditure is complicated. It is too detailed to consider here and now whether a guarantee is public expenditure, but public expenditure will be incurred if British Rail goes ahead with the 80-mile rail link. Here we are rushing ahead like the Gadarene swine with the proposals for a tunnel and high-speed railway, the costs of which are escalating every day.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East referred to a short article in the Economist last week headed "Underground Concorde". As that journal pointed out, the original estimate last year for the rail link was £120 million. Because of pressure—quite rightly—from the environmentalists, that estimate would escalate to about £350 million if much of the link was built underground. Now, with inflation continuing and costs rising, the figure is in the region of about £400 million to £500 million. That does not take account of the vast compensation that British Rail and others would have to pay on environmental grounds if the scheme should by any misfortune go ahead.
In a short time, therefore, the estimated costs of the rail link alone are greater than the original estimate for the tunnel itself, a cost which is now put at some £1,500 million. What a lot of nonsense this is. The route of the rail link has not even been decided on, so that any figures at the moment are at best only guesstimates.
There has been a lot of talk about freight being moved off the roads and on to the railways, but half the traffic for the tunnel will consist of cars and lorries meeting it at Cheriton, having motored through Kent, so that the county will not benefit from this unnecessary and expensive rail link.
Another objection is that my constituents have been denied the right adequately to express their views since British Rail and the Government are taking advantage of nineteenth-century procedures for acquiring railway land and are denying my constituents who live along the probable route the chance of having their case fully heard in public. When he was in opposition, the Secretary of State for the Environment supported

my request for a public inquiry. Now that he has the power to arrange it, he has done nothing whatever about it and has changed his coat completely. At least, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) has been consistent in his support for the project.
I oppose the Bill also because of its implications for an overall transport policy and for national security. A single fixed link is intended to attract traffic from numerous sea crossing and air routes. If the tunnel succeeded in that and much of our continental traffic were to be channelled through France, there would be real cause for alarm.
My constituents, many of whom commute to London, are already subject to countless annoyances and disruptions through strikes or go-slows by railway workers. France at the moment is steadily moving Leftwards and there is a considerable chance that the Communists might get into power in France. The French Confédération Générale du Travail is hardly less a power in France than is the TUC in Britain. The mind boggles at what could happen if French or British railway workers acted in concert over disputes on wages and conditions of service.
If the project goes ahead, we will be as dependent on the good will of the French railwaymen as we are, alas, on the English railwaymen.
In these violent, terrorist days when more and more movements—political, economic and even academic—are increasingly willing to use force to obtain their ends, the chances of disruption and damage will clearly be increased if a tunnel is built. Even a telephone threat of a bomb in a train in the tunnel would mean suspension of all traffic until a thorough search had been made. But the whole idea of the Channel Tunnel and a high-speed rail link is to provide a continual stream of fast-moving trains, day and night. It would defeat the whole purpose of the tunnel if every train had to be searched for a possible bomb.
I ask the House, on grounds of finance and economics, on grounds of environmental, pollution and transport policy and in the interests of national security, to refuse to approve the motion and to support the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in his attempt to rescue his Ministers from their collective responsibilities.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The last remarks of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) were some of the best I have heard, at least in this Session. I hope, with due respect to the hon. Member for Seven-oaks and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that some of my hon. Friends will note the company they intend to keep in the Lobbies.
On a previous occasion I said that I had been in the Conservative Lobby once, that I did not enjoy the experience and that I hoped the occasion would not arise again. I managed to fulfil that hope. My hon. Friends who honestly oppose the motion should consider some of the remarks the hon. Member for Sevenoaks made—for example "Why this great rush?" He asked: "This matter has been on the go only since 1880. Let us keep it for a centenary."
There has been a change in the climate in France, the hon. Member told us. I have a news flash for him. I quote:
Autumn gales in the Channel yesterday and today have caused cancellation of all cross-Channel hovercraft services, considerable delays to sea ferry services, sickness and discomfort to passengers. Ambulances have been directed to meet Channel ferries to succour sick and disabled passengers.
It seems that at least the climate today is the same on both sides of the Channel and a fixed link would avoid the difficulties I have just mentioned.
I wonder whether there would be all this fuss about a fixed rail link in a tunnel under the Channel had the North Sea never flooded the land between the British Isles and the mainland of Europe. Had that not happened, would we not have pack horses, ordinary roads, then motorways and rail links all operating?
This is the fifth debate in two years on the Channel Tunnel. This is partly due to there having been General Elections and partly due to the introduction of legislation and Bills. Thanks to the generosity of the Chair, this debate has not been limited merely to the motion before us. It has, in effect, been another Second Reading debate—and rightly so. No one can complain that the House has not had ample opportunity to debate and to bring forward counter-proposals, although, thank goodness, the hon. Mem

ber for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) has not tonight brought up the suggestion about a barrage.
Other schemes have been considered on a number of occasions, but no one outside the House has been persuaded to put up any money to back an alternative to the tunnel. Thank goodness that while we have been talking in Parliament work has been proceeding on the construction of the approaches to the Channel Tunnel. Those involved in this have been doing a very good job.
I remind my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench that the Labour Party have fought two General Elections within the past 12 months with the following slogans:
Actions—not words".
Labour gets things done".
Give us the majority to get on with the job.
So far as I am concerned, one of the reasons why I wanted the country to give us a majority was to enable us to get on with building the Channel Tunnel. We have talked about it long enough. We should get on with the job.
More delay, more uncertainty and more doubt will mean less work for people in Kent and in the regions, and the costs, whether to the travellers or to the taxpayers, will be greater the longer the delay continues.
I want the motion to be passed. I shall leave my other comments on the details of the Bill until later. The motion will simply mean that proposals which went through in the last Session of Parliament will be carried over to this Session.
I have consistently supported the proposals for a Channel Tunnel while others have consistently opposed the project. The Labour Government from 1964 right up until 1970 were preparing the way for the Channel Tunnel. Then, in 1972, in opposition, we wavered and we were to a certain degree opposed to the tunnel. I then found myself in the minority and I spoke against the view then being expressed by the majority. I abstained from voting in the Lobbies. That was entirely within my rights as a Member of the Parliamentary Labour Party. At one time I was in a majority and I obeyed majority rules, and when I was in a minority I still obeyed majority rules.
Yet today there are those who are saying that they will take their consciences into the Lobby against the Government. I do not think that they should vote against their own Government early in a Parliament. They will have to make up their minds on this matter. But there must not be two sets of rules, one set for me when I am in the minority and one set for them when they are in a minority. There must be one set of rules for the whole of the party.
My right hon. Friend will try to persuade some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but even if he were the Archangel Gabriel he would not be able to persuade them, because their opposition is not only to the Channel Tunnel but also to the EEC. Inside or outside Europe, in or out of the Common Market, Britain needs the Channel Tunnel. So let us get on with the job and see what the majority will be.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: Each month since 30th April, when the Bill had a Second Reading in the last Parliament, has seen an increase in inflation. It is now impossible to forecast with anything like certainty what the ultimate cost of the Channel Tunnel project will be. But I believe it to be certain that the last official estimate of £846 million will eventually be seen to have had a quaint historical interest which will remind us of the "glad confident morning" of the Concorde project
High in the importance of the ingredients of the whole project is the high-speed rail link. The cost of the link is now known to be vastly in excess of what was originally supposed and put forward with confidence. If the Bill is passed, the Government will ratify the Channel Tunnel Treaty. Ratification depends upon the enactment of the Bill by 31st December. It commits us to the principle of constructing not only the tunnel but the high-speed rail link and the rail terminal at each end. That is included in the exchange of letters between the two Governments and in the agreements which are annexed to the treaty.
Contrary to what the Minister said earlier this afternoon, the Bill does have something to do with the rail link. It is a subject of critical importance to the

South-East as a whole and to Kent in particular. Neither on the tunnel project as a whole nor on the rail link has there ever been an independent public inquiry into the merits.
Further, there has never been any public forum established at which the proposals could be tested by the adversary process of cross-examination. The principle of the project could not be questioned in the Select Committee and, although we have had five debates on the matter, absurdly little is known at this late stage about the nature of the rail link, its effect on the environment, or its cost.
Rather late in the day it is announced that Sir Alec Cairncross has been brought in to have a general look at the project. The Minister was not able to tell us his precise terms of reference. As I understand it, he is to be asked to advise on the adequacy of the original assessments. Nothing very precise is put forward about that. An independent inquiry into the rail link has always been refused.
This is not a project in respect of which the facts and the cost are clear for all to see. It is a project in which 90 per cent. of the capital is to be raised by Government guaranteed bonds. It may be necessary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) said, to have Government guarantees so as to raise this sort of money on the international market. But the Roskill Commission in its final report on the Maplin project, rejected this method of financing the project on the ground that the entire cost of failure would be borne ultimately by the taxpayer. The significance of the rise in inflation is surely that the risk of ultimate failure is getting greater all the time. In the end, if the Government guarantees have to be called, the taxpayer will find upon his table an enormously inflationary excess tax demand.
That is the background to the proposal that this new House should reject its normal and proper opportunity to require the Government to prove afresh their case for the tunnel in these changed circumstances. That is why I believe that this is not merely a procedural motion but a matter of much more fundamental importance
if the whole apparatus involved in this Bill were set into operation it would be extremely difficult, no matter what may be the out-turn of the considerations in phase 2, to go back


on the completion of the whole enterprise"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December 1973; Vol. 865, c. 1311.]
Those are not my words but are the words of the Minister in a previous debate. I am glad to adopt them. I believe that they are sound. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman ever uttered a truer word. He has certainly not done so since taking office.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I shall keep my remarks short and I shall not introduce too many facts. Hon. Members may laugh about that, but there have been so many facts flying across the Chamber that the real argument has become confused.
The real issue is about the allocation of resources. I do not consider that I have been sent here to judge every case on its merits. That presupposes that we have unlimited resources. We are here to make a judgment on the importance of various issues as they arise. Twice this year in my election address I have told my constituents that I was not coming here, and did not want to come here, to support grandiose spending schemes while thousands of homes in my constituency have outside toilets. I have said that twice this year, and this is the second time I have been returned. I shall vote against the motion.
Last week many of the newspapers reported that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was bringing in a plan for new homes. It seems that we may be going back to prefabs. If my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government think that Labour Ministers were sent here to support measures involving the misallocation of resources, whether public or private, let them think again.
This is a matter on which we must make judgment. We must decide whether the project will go ahead. We have heard a few facts. We have heard about 123,000 tons of cement. It seems that that was not thought to be a large amount. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should put the 123,000 tons of cement with the 300 million house-bricks lying on the side of the M1 motorway and build the damned houses.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: I confess to being cheated of what I thought

would be a cheerful experience—namely, to hear the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) posing as the defender of constitutional propriety. However, I pay tribute to him for being utterly candid, as one would expect of the defender of the Clay Cross councillors. It seems that the hon. Member is all for bending rules provided that they are bent in his favour and not against him.
On this occasion the Government are bending rules and it seems that there is no apt constitutional precedent for what they are doing. Of course we are debating a procedural motion, and therefore I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) or deal with the merits of his case. On any view there will be another occasion—there may be tens of occasions—when we can canvass the whole matter once again. We have already had five or six debates on the merits of the tunnel and the substantive issues which will arise.
Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) I shall be interested to hear on another occasion the altered financial implications of the tunnel. It may be that the consortium is hoping to tap Arab money for its bonds. In that event we shall have the interesting spectacle of the descendants of those who so signally failed to roll back the Red Sea financing the Channel Tunnel project. We shall have to debate on another occasion whether public money should be committed to the high-speed rail link. I am very doubtful whether in our present financial straits it is possible to approve public spending on the rail link. I do not believe that this is the occasion to debate the issue.
There is a practical point which concerns those whom I represent. If the motion is not carried and if the Government reintroduce the Bill, there will have to be another Select Committee. All those who were interested in the deliberations of previous Select Committees will probably feel obliged to petition again.
I have not been in touch with all the private bodies from East Kent who petitioned on the last occasion. I have, however, been in touch with the Kent County Council as, I believe, has my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). It is particularly pleasing to


hear my hon. Friend speak from a position in Kent. I have been in touch with the county council and the Dover District Council and both of these bodies have conveyed to me emphatically that they do not want to put the ratepayers and, indeed, their own officers to the trouble and expense of a further petition. This is a practical point which the House should take into account.
I have no doubt that the other private organisations which gave evidence before the Select Committee are of the same mind, although I am not authorised to speak for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) will no doubt speak for certain interested parties, and the House will be interested to hear what he has to say.
On that practical ground, therefore, I shall support the motion, provided that the Minister shows that he is a little more sensitive than he has demonstrated himself to be to the feelings of the people of East Kent. We need rather more assurance than he has been able to give us up to now.
I ventured to intervene in the Minister's speech about the Cairncross Committee, because I had put down a Question and I had not at that point received the answer. I have now received it, and I am therefore slightly better informed now than I was earlier this afternoon, but not much better informed, because no formal terms of reference are envisaged and the committee is not to report until some unspecified time next year.
What I want to know—and I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us when he replies to the debate—is how the Cairn-cross Committee will proceed. Who will be appointed to the committee? We know that two members apart from Sir Alec himself have been appointed. Who else will be on it? Will local interests be represented? Will the committee be allowed to hear evidence? If there is not to be another Select Committee in this House—I know that there will be one in another place—it may be that some of the interested parties would care to give evidence to Sir Alec Cairncross and his committee.
At present we are totally unaware of how the committee is to proceed, whether the members will hear witnesses, whether

they will go down to East Kent or how they will approach their task. The Minister should give us clear reassurance on this matter.
On the question of the Select Committee in another place, we know that Labour Members are apt to sweep aside the deliberations of another place as being of relatively little importance as compared with our own deliberations. However, if we are not to have another Select Committee in this House, how much regard will the Minister pay to the conclusions of the Select Committee in another place? I know that he cannot commit himself to accept everything it says, but we should like to know what views he will have. These are matters of great importance to the people of East Kent.
At my request—and I am arrogant enough to claim credit for this—my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), who was then responsible for these matters, agreed to set up a consultative committee so that he, members of his Department and the interested parties in East Kent could meet from time to time to iron out the problems that can arise when there is a great environmental project to put through. There was one meeting of that committee before the February election and I believe that the present Minister presided over another before the October election. It has come to my notice, however, that it is now being suggested from the Department—perhaps not by the Minister himself—that these matters could be sorted out on an officer-to-civil servant basis: in other words, the elected representatives of East Kent will not now necessarily meet him and his Under-Secretary on a regular basis.
This goes clean against the spirit of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister, or his Under-Secretary when he replies, will give us a categoric assurance that that committee will meet regularly, if the motion is passed and if we proceed to the next phase, so that the elected representatives—the councillors in East Kent and on the Kent County Council—will have a chance to meet him regularly and not simply his civil servants. That was the tenor of the undertaking which was given, and nothing less will satisfy us in East Kent.

Mr. Mulley: I have met the Kent County Council and the district councils on more than one occasion, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested, but once the Bill was presented by the hon. and learned Gentleman's Government many of the matters which were contained in the Bill were overtaken by events. Indeed, as I understood it—I met them on a number of occasions—their concern was about the rail link, about which we are having continuing meetings.

Mr. Rees: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is having meetings about the rail link. Indeed, he has met me and a number of my hon. Friends on this, and I pay testimony to that, but this is not the whole problem.
Again, the Minister shows that he has not entirely grasped the type of problems that arise when a major environmental project is started in a certain part of the country. There are all sorts of problems, such as the question of removing the spoil and so on. The right hon. Gentleman would dispel a great deal of criticism if he were to give the assurance for which I ask, because the suggestion has emanated from his Department that it would be sufficient if officers of the local authorities concerned merely met occasionally with civil servants in his Department. I am telling the right hon. Gentleman quite plainly that that will not dispel criticism in East Kent.

Mr. Mulley: I willingly give that assurance. I merely said that I had been doing that, and I have not changed my plan. I have even discussed the spoil question with the East Kent Council.

Mr. Rees: I am very glad to hear that. For that reason alone this debate will have served some purpose, because we hear now from the Minister that he will perhaps be a little more sensitive than in the past to our feelings down in East Kent.
We know that the Government proceed, in this as in everything, with a certain ambiguity and do not choose to let their left hand know what their right hand is doing. One appreciates their local difficulties. Indeed, I observed, as I studied the Minister this afternoon, that he evoked a certain sympathy because most of his remarks were really directed

behind him rather than in front of him. But he must pay some attention to those of us on this side of the House who represent constituencies. He must show that he is genuinely anxious to hear and respond to our views. On the basis that he will do so, I shall support him tonight for the practical reason that I do not want to put the ratepayers of Kent to further trouble and expense. If in the future the Minister does not show himself to be sensitive to the various problems that are likely to arise, he must expect no support and no quarter, at any rate from me.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: One of the difficulties the House faces is the fact that a fairly wide-ranging debate on the merits and demerits of the tunnel has taken place on what is basically a procedural motion. It may well be understandable that this has happened, but it is nevertheless unfortunate.
Had it not been for the accident of two General Elections in one year—one within seven months of the other—the Bill would have been taking its normal passage through the House. We should have been facing the situation, the Bill having reached the stage it had reached prior to the General Election, of the Bill coming to the House on Report and then having a Third Reading where the merits and demerits of that section of the Bill could have been thrashed out and, indeed, can still be thrashed out before being sent to another place for consideration.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that I am as concerned as he is about the building of houses and the use of resources for hospitals, roads and the like. These issues are uppermost and paramount in our minds. But the difficulty of a particular Bill and a particular procedure when two nations are involved, with two separate actions taking place on each side of the Channel, makes for difficulties which, although we may not be entirely swayed by them, must be taken into consideration.
The French, for example, are already well advanced with their own rail link. With all due deference to the environmental objections of Conservative Members, as an ex-serving railway man I should like to see the rail connection advanced just as quickly here. As a


North-East Member, I am concerned, or perhaps a little swayed, by the environmental problem that exists, but I am more concerned than hon. Members opposite by the fact that the tunnel will be in the south. I wish the Channel were a lot nearer where I represent, in Sunderland. I should welcome the end of the tunnel and everything that goes with it in my area.
I wish the environmental lobby of the Members from Kent luck, but I am not swayed by the environmental argument. They are fortunate because in these days people are worried about the environmental problem and whatever is done the environmental conditions will be looked at very carefully indeed—certainly a damned sight more carefully than was the case when the old coal owners dug their pits in my part of the country.
It is important, too, that there is a static link. We must ask ourselves if the existing facilities between the two countries are adequate. Are the shipping links satisfactory? With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), are they satisfactory in bad weather and the like? Is the aircraft situation as good as it could be, often knocked about as it is by fog which causes landings in places such as Manchester and elsewhere instead of where one would like to land? It is of great importance that a quick, efficient alternative route should be built, and it can be.
I cannot but agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) when he points out that the growth potential of traffic both to and from Europe is considerable. I feel that there is a great need for all means of transport to and from the other side.
My main intention for joining in the debate is—

Mr. Prescott: As a representative of the NUR.

Mr. Bagier: My hon. Friend says "As a representative of the NUR," and I have no doubt that equal emphasis will be put on the fact that he is a representatives of the National Union of Seamen. Let us accept that point. Nevertheless, I have made my case why the tunnel can and should be debated other than on this motion. The Chair has been exceedingly

gracious in allowing such a width of debate. The motion refers to the peculiar difficulties of this Bill. Because a General Election intervened, the progress of this measure was stopped.
It is felt, rightly or wrongly, that the procedure of the House could be adjusted—that is the purpose of the motion—to avoid the considerable cost and time involved in taking the Bill through all its stages again. I have heard it said by some of my hon. Friends that considerable sums of money poured into the pockets of the QCs and lawyers who represented the petitioners in Select Committees and the like. If it is suggested that that is not known to new hon. Members, I recommend that they go to the Vote Office and obtain copies of the Select Committee Report and all the debates which have taken place on this Bill.
What is being asked for tonight is merely that the First Reading—on which there is no debate anyway—the Second Reading—the debate on which is there for anyone to read and take note of—and the Select Committee and Standing Committee Reports—which can be examined—should be accepted by the House in order to save the expensive process of going back to square one. The motion seeks to allow the House to go on to the Report stage, when each of the Standing Committee's proposals can be examined in detail. Following that, on Third Reading there can be a wide-ranging view of the Report stage and the measure could even be thrown out then if the House so wished. This is a procedural motion and I hope that the House will allow the Government to proceed with it.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) has tried to play down the constitutional importance of what is before the House today. I took particular exception to his remark that there had been the accident of an election. Elections do not happen accidentally. They are, I presume, planned in the minds of Prime Ministers and Leaders of the House. I submit that it was up to the Government so to organise their business that if they wished to ensure that a certain item should be suspended and carried forward to the next Parliament they put down the appropriate motion on the Order


Paper; and they did not do so. That is a point of great constitutional significance.
I should like to devote my few remarks to the procedural question, and I return to the Minister's opening speech. It has been our pleasure to hear the Minister speaking on this subject on many occasions in the past couple of years—and I say "pleasure". I admired the sincerity with which he originally opposed the Bill. I admired the ingenuity with which he subsequently supported it. I am not sure, however, that he carried the same conviction today. I felt that his heart was not in the case he tried to make for the motion.
First the Minister said—I think that we have heard these words before—that by passing this motion, and, indeed, the Bill, we still create no commitment to the Channel Tunnel project. We heard that on phase 1. We heard it on the initial financing Bill. Now we are told that, because of what we said on that earlier Bill, we must go ahead with it, because if we do not pass it we shall have to meet all the penalties of early abandonment. We are increasingly told on all these major projects that we can never go back, that we can never stop, because we are already committed to such a large extent.
I am sure that the Minister will accept that the House would not wish to be—I use these harsh words—financially blackmailed at this or any other stage by being told that it cannot reject the Third Reading simply because of these penalty clauses, which I feel are a little vague and not really positive, although there are, obviously, opportunities to renegotiate.
It was also said by the Minister that in Standing Committee it was said that there was a possibility of a General Election and, of course, the possibility of this motion. I think he was being a little disingenuous. We know that the reference there was to a carry-over motion in the previous Parliament. That motion was not moved or accepted in any form by the House and on that ground he was not making a fair reference when he referred to that remark in Standing Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman also said, "What we are doing today compares with Private Bill procedure ". There is a

world of difference between this Bill and a Private Bill, and it is confusing the issue to suggest that that is not so. In the case of a Private Bill, broadly speaking, the House of Commons is exercising its rôle far more as an adjudicator than as a legislature, and there is a strong case for allowing Private Bills to be carried over. Here we are talking about a major Public Bill. It is, of course, hybrid, but the hybrid element is only part of it. On a major Public Bill we are seeking to establish a very important precedent whereby legislation of this kind does not fall when Parliament ends.
We have a new Parliament; we have new Members. The Second Reading of a Bill is theoretically the only time when we should discuss the broad principles of a measure. So I submit that this Parliament should have the right to consider the whole matter in broad principle on Second Reading and to reject it if necessary.
On another point the right hon. Gentleman said, "The petitioners still have the right to petition the House of Lords." That is true; but they always do. If he is saying that it is enough for them to petition the House of Lords, then he is saying that, generally speaking, this feature of procedure is an unnecessary duplication. I submit that it is not so.
The right hon. Gentleman and others have made the strong point that petitioners would be put to unnecessary expense. I pointed out earlier, in a brief intervention, that they need be put to that expense only if they wish to do so, and if they felt that it would be a productive and sensible course of action. If Kent County Council feels that it does not need to petition, and feels that it has achieved all that it could, that is its decision, and I would not criticise it if it decided not to go through the procedure again.
There are other petitioners, many of whom took a very active rôle, who would be pleased at the opportunity to make their case and make further points to the Select Committee. I quote a letter from The Defenders of Kent, which was sent to the Minister, and of which I have a copy. They are eminent objectors to the Bill, and they state:
As far as we are concerned we would be delighted to petition again for the benefit of Kent.


Therefore, we should be careful not to put words into their mouths when we say that we are endeavouring to save them money. Many people would welcome the chance to petition again. Therefore, the convenience argument is something about which we should be careful.

Mr. Costain: I am following the hon. Gentleman's logic with great care, but does he not appreciate that once another petition like that of the Defenders of Kent is submitted, the local authorities must defend their interests in case something is gained by the petitioners which weakens the authorities' position. My local authority has already spent £20,000, excluding what has been spent by the county council, and it does not wish to incur further expense.

Mr. Moate: I am not sure that I follow the point, but I believe it to be most unlikely that it would result in an amendment adverse to the position of the county council. If it were worth spending that money, so be it. There is so much at stake for the county that I am sure an extra examination of the position would be a useful investment. All I say is that there would be other petitioners who would be willing to come before another Select Committee.
The Minister referred to the Cairncross Committee. To a certain extent he had our sympathy when he told us that the appointment of the committee had been delayed by the General Election, but we were first told about the committee in April, it has taken eight months for any action to be taken, and I understand that the committee is still not fully appointed. We have the chairman and a couple of nominations. No doubt, the Minister will tell us what the committee's full complement will be and when he expects to appoint the other members. Is it satisfactory that it should take eight months to set up a committee of this nature? The election might have delayed the matter by a few weeks, but during all the previous months Ministers and the Department of the Environment could have been busy appointing those people. Yet suddenly it is desperately urgent to get the matter through by 31st December.

Mr. Mulley: I should like to make one matter clear. The previous Govern

ment, the hon. Member's own Government, were not proposing to have any independent committee at all. They were going to do the whole thing as arranged at phase II. Clearly we wish that the Cairncross Committee could have started earlier. It is at work now, but it could not do any useful work until it saw how phase 2 studies were coming out from the mechanism set up by the Tory Government.

Mr. Moate: I welcome the Cairncross Committee. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have voted against my own party on the issue on frequent occasions. I should have been more sympathetic had the Minister gone ahead with his promised intention to have a proper inquiry into a rail-only link. The right hon. Gentleman would then have had my wholehearted support. But that was not to be.
I want to make a serious point about the Cairncross Committee. We are now told that it is likely to report, I believe, by next spring. That does not give the committee very long—only three, four or five months at the most. During those months the committee members are, presumably, expected to analyse the vast quantity of material available, and not to accept all the data produced by the experts. They are presumably expected to carry out original research. Can we believe that a proper and searching inquiry into the Channel Tunnel and its alternatives can be made in such a short time? I consider that the House and the country are being let down in respect of the Government's promise to have a far-reaching inquiry into the alternatives.
I turn again to the constitutional position. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that there is no exact precedent for a motion of this kind. It is the first occasion on which a Bill of this kind has been put to the House of Commons to curtail the legislative process, without there having been a carry-over motion. I gather that it is true that there was a report—I believe it was the Donemore Report—that recommended this approach; I believe it was in 1929. I think the right hon. Gentleman omitted to say that the House of Commons at that time decided that it did not want to adopt that procedure. That emphasises the point that we are considering an important matter.
I refer to Erskine May on the subject, which says:
Provisions have been made for a provision … for the suspension of bills from one session to another … but various considerations have restrained the legislature from disturbing the constitutional law by which parliamentary proceedings are discontinued by a prorogation.
Erskine May is positive on that point, that Parliament in the past has considered it and decided not to proceed.
Yet here we are with a Bill which the Government tried to slip through on the nod, although right hon. Gentlemen disclaim that intention. We are considering a major constitutional matter, yet it is being discussed in this way, whereas I submit that it would have been far more satisfactory had it gone to the Procedure Committee. We are setting a dangerous precedent, because all the arguments being put forward relate to cost, convenience and the uncertainty that will continue for that much longer.
Could not those arguments be deployed about large areas of public legislation? Might they not be put forward, for example, about a land nationalisation Bill? We may imagine the uncertainty that that would cause. If such a Bill were not to be completed by the end of a parliamentary Session we would have these arguments of convenience, cost and uncertainty put forward in favour of a carry-over motion, or of the matter being taken up in the next Session of Parliament from where it left off.
The sovereignty of Parliament is fundamental and the right not to be bound by the action of our predecessors is fundamental, too. Even in special circumstances, such as on Private Bills or even on Hybrid Bills, where we consider it an overwhelming argument that there should be a continuation, the matter should be considered much more seriously by the Procedure Committee and not be dealt with in this manner by the House.
The principle of Bills falling at the end of a Session is one of the most important disciplines on Governments, a discipline saying that they cannot force through too much legislation or too much controversial legislation against the House's wishes. If the argument is put forward that an election has intervened, it is an even greater discipline upon them. The election is their choice. If they

choose not to bring forward a carry-over motion, that is their fault. It is not up to us to try to help them out and make it more convenient for the Government.

Mr. Mulley: I wish to make a simple point. The constitutional objection to this Bill is that it is being carried forward twice. One election was the choice of the Prime Minister of my party, and the other election was the choice of the Prime Minister of the hon. Gentleman's party, so I do not think that one can make politics out of that.

Mr. Moate: There is not much political advantage in it for me anyway, because I seem to have been opposed to successive Governments on this issue. The difference is that in the previous case the carry-over motion was put properly by the then Conservative Government to the House of Commons. They dealt properly and constitutionally with the position. Now we are asked to make a far-reaching alteration in our procedures, not for the convenience of the petitioners but for the convenience of the Government.
If this were a matter of overwhelming urgency and great public importance, perhaps one could go along with it, but I do not feel that the building of the Channel Tunnel is something that has such overwhelming public importance or public support, that it is of so great a priority, that we have to take it through in this way.
I have steered clear of the merits of the argument about the Channel Tunnel, but the circumstances have changed substantially. That alone would be enough to justify the House of Commons looking at this matter once again. The costs have soared astronomically. One hears talk about British Rail being lukewarm about the proposal. One has seen various reports. One was referred to earlier about British Rail complaining that the planning of electrification projects has been delayed because of preoccupation with the continuing Channel Tunnel project. It is already diverting resources that could be better employed.
There is an overwhelming case, in my view, for cancelling the project. I have never made any bones about that. I think it is a bad project. It is a bad allocation of priorities, and environmentally it will do more harm than good for the County of Kent. There is now an


overwhelming case for at least going slow on the project, at least for having a proper public inquiry and exhaustive examination of all the costs. There is no case whatever for rushing it through in this way. I hope that the House will reject the motion this evening.

6.58 p.m.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall start with a few comments on the procedural position. I do not speak from the point of view of the constitutionalist and I regard many of the procedures of the House as antique. But it seems to me that if one is to look at the procedures of the House, one should not do so on a motion of this kind on a subject entirely different from the actual procedures themselves.
Further, it seems entirely unfair and illogical to talk about the radical wing of the Labour Party being suddenly concerned with tradition, while at the same time assuring the House that it does not matter too much if the stages of the Bill are not pursued in this House because they are to be dealt with in the House of Lords. For anyone concerned for the democratic structure of government, the other place is hardly the apotheosis of democracy. In the view of some of us, it should be abolished, and the sooner the better. But one cannot have it both ways. It cannot be said, on the one hand, that we are out of place in being traditionalist, and, on the other, that the Bill is going to an undemocratic place where further objections can be levied.
I am concerned about the procedures. Let us have something straightforward. Let us have a debate about our procedure—and, hopefully, that will take place about the broadcasting of our proceedings.

Mr. Mulley: No one has suggested that the House of Lords is a substitute for proper consideration in this House. The Report stage and Third Reading follow. The House of Lords would have the Select Committee, but the Select Committee is obliged to act, and in my experience always does act, as a quasi-judicial body. It is no sense a political body, and that aspect of the other place I should not have thought my hon. Friend would want to criticise.

Mr. Cryer: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I should have thought that

there was a case for saying that where one hands over a degree of power and emphasis to the House of Lords it bolsters the existence of that place. Its quasi-judicial functions are an integral part of the whole. One cannot easily separate them.
I want to touch briefly on the costs of the project. I voted against the Bill. It was the first time as a new Member that I had even contemplated voting against my own Government. It was a momentous occasion for me. But during the recent election campaign the Channel Tunnel project came up. My constituents were far more interested in the sort of priorities that have been discussed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but principally on this side, and where, for instance, I have asked for special consideration to be given two schools in my constituency—Hartington and Swire Smith—which are badly in need of replacement but have been told that this is not possible.
It can be argued that there are some accounting technicalities involved in the Channel Tunnel, but if I go back to my constituents and say that I have voted for a massive expenditure on a tunnel which will not directly benefit them, because the vision of a short, quick, cheap-day return to Paris does not hold out much attraction for them, and if I go back and say that we supported a Channel Tunnel Bill, which involves expenditure of £1,400 million, they will ask, "What about local expenditure? Let us get our priorities right."
So on the basis of cost, and the appeal to the people outside, what we ought to do is to delay this matter, to squash it, until the report of the Cairncross Committee. It makes entire logic that, if one is setting up an independent committee to assess the position, one should receive its report and then start on one's legislative way.
One of the Achilles heels of this project is undoubtedly the fact—-in my view at any rate—that the rail link is not a part of the Bill. One has a horrible suspicion that this will finish, if it goes ahead without the rail link as an integral part, like the new wholesale fruit and vegetable market in London at Nine Elms where there was provision for a rail link. But the railway goes through the centre, and it was an extra cost that


was deemed not possible when the market was constructed. Everything goes in now by road. Indeed, if we did embark on this sort of rail link, would it prejudice other railway priorities? This has already been mentioned in the debate. It is a cause of some concern.
British Railways will face some problems. There is the hum-drum diesel multiple-unit which is nearing the end of its life. It will be replaced at some stage in the future at a cost of several million pounds. If British Railways are faced with a high-speed rail link—a showpiece railway—over perhaps the next five or 10 years, it is almost certain that priorities will be diverted into the high-speed rail link and the mundane, cross-country intermediate lines will be run down more and more. It is certainly a worry, in my view, that, even associated with the rail link, the priorities will become somewhat mixed.
Fifthly, I am a little concerned about the attitude of the Government that, because something was already there, put there by the previous Conservative Government, they have to take it over. I always felt that, when we were elected into office, we did not necessarily take the path that, because a Conservative Government had done something, we should necessarily follow. One of the strong arguments during the election was that some things that the Conservative Government had done we should definitely not follow but should oppose and change. The argument that, because certain decisions have been made we should accept them, is very weak. There is also a misunderstanding by people outside. They say that the Labour Party when in opposition voted against this Bill but that when it became the Government it took up the matter and brought it forward. The public find it difficult to understand that a party took one view, went to the country, and took another view when it achieved office. The public like politicians to be consistent.
One of the things that concerns us all is the cynicism and disenchantment with which we are greeted. When we stand on platforms and expound our ideas, people say "Politicians never keep their word. They do not carry out their promises". The last Labour Government carried out their promises in fair

measure. That was one of the things of which I was proud during the last election campaign.
I should like consistency about some of the less politically controversial issues, such as the Channel Tunnel. I have always taken the view that it is not "My Government right or wrong", but "My Government subject to critical review". Hopefully, the Government will keep on the right political path because there are Members on the back benches scrutinising their actions. Those actions, in the main, have been very good so far. But we want to make sure that that scrutiny takes place tonight.
The Minister said that if we vote against this measure tonight, the option to proceed immediately is closed. That makes the position very clear. We can vote on the question of precedent on the procedure issue. We can vote on the cost. But either way, if we vote against the Bill, the Channel Tunnel project will be ended, we hope, once and for all. I think that the public will say "Good. The Labour Government have got their priorities right". That is why I shall vote against this procedural motion tonight.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. John Stanley: I should like to declare an interest in RTZ Europe which does not have any involvement with the Channel Tunnel, but which is a subsidiary of a member of the consortium.
I believe that we should vote against the motion this evening and preserve for the House an entitlement to the Second Reading of the Bill. We should do so because the most critical assumption of all, determining whether or not this project is acceptable to a majority of the House, is now clearly coming unstuck.
The most critical assumption which has prevailed to date, is that it is possible to finance 100 per cent. of the cost of the Channel Tunnel without recourse to £1 in cash from the Exchequer. In other words, although it may be necessary to use Treasury guarantees for 90 per cent. of the cost of the Channel Tunnel project, it will not be necessary at any time to draw on those guarantees. That assumption is now looking increasingly weak and, at the very least,


it is right that the House should preserve its entitlement to a Second Reading, when that assumption may be more fully and more searchingly tested.
The two critical assumptions in the costing of this project are, first, the assumption that is made about the rate of construction-cost inflation, and, secondly, the assumption that is made about the rate of interest that will be borne on the debt that will finance the overwhelming part of the project. It would appear that the assumptions used to date are considerably lower than what will prove to be the case in practice.
Regarding the assumption about construction costs the right hon. Member the Minister of Transport in a Written Answer to me last week said:
The estimated out turn cost
—of the project—
of £846 million … assumed an annual rate of 7 per cent. inflation in tunnel construction costs…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 225.]
I do not believe that it is possible to find a fully comparable index for construction-cost inflation as this is a unique construction project.
But I would draw the attention of the House to the figures produced by the Department of Employment in its Monthly Digest of Statistics for September. The figures show that over the last year for which figures are available, from September 1973 until August of this year, the increase in basic weekly rates of pay for manual workers in the construction industry increased by about 20 per cent. That seems to represent a substantial rate of inflation in the construction industry and suggests that the assumption of 7 per cent. inflation of construction costs per year throughout the lifetime of the construction of the Channel Tunnel may have to be sharply revised upwards. If that has to happen, it is likely to have an apparent effect upon the out-turn cost of the project.
The Minister also gave me the figures assumed for the estimated interest rates behind the estimated forecast cost of £846 million. In his answer to me last week, he said that the interest rate assumptions that had been used were interest rates of between 7½ per cent. and 10 per cent. Having consulted the Financial Times this morning, I can only say that for all

short-term money, money up to one year, it is necessary to pay a rate of between 10½ per cent. and 13 per cent. and that at the moment for any money longer than two years, two to five-year money, the interest currently quoted is about 15 per cent.
It would seem that this, too, is a key assumption about the cost of the project which is likely to have to be revised considerably upwards. If that is the case, one must have serious doubts about whether even the Money Resolution of the Channel Tunnel Bill will be adequate to cover the cost of the project. The House needs to consider whether it is right to forfeit its entitlement to a Second Reading of the Bill on this score alone.
I turn to the question of the cost of the rail link. I was somewhat surprised when the Minister suggested that consideration of the rail link was not germane to this motion. Many hon. Members have made the point, particularly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew), that the cost of the rail link and the commitment to the rail link are integral parts of the motion. They are integral parts because as the Minister said, he needs the Channel Tunnel Bill in order to be able to ratify the Treaty. But, as he will know, in the third schedule of the treaty there is a clear commitment in effect to construct a high-speed line.
In the third schedule of the treaty there is a commitment that, on the British side, there will be railworks carried out:
to enable a journey time of one hour to be achieved between the London terminal and the Tunnel.
This means that there is a clear commitment in the treaty to fulfil the commitment to construct the high-speed line.

Mr. Mulley: I did not say that the rail link was not germane to the problem of the tunnel. I said that any arrangements for construction of the rail link would need separate legislation and that whether the motion or the Bill were passed would not affect that situation. That was what I wanted to make clear.
We have already deferred the start of the rail link Bill. It should have been brought before the House, on the hon. Gentleman's own Government's timetable, this month. But, because of lack of consultation, we have deferred it and, if need be, we shall defer it again.

Mr. Stanley: I do not deny that separate legislative powers will be necessary to construct the rail link. I am pointing out, and I do not think the Minister will dispute this, that the day he ratifies the treaty he will be under a treaty obligation to construct that rail link. If he fails to construct that rail link within the timescale specified in the treaty, it is possible that the two Governments may incur penalties. There is therefore an implicit, indeed, an explicit, commitment in the treaty to construct the rail link and the ratification of that treaty is dependent on this legislation.
As hon. Members have mentioned, the cost of the rail link is an essential feature of this debate. Yet, the House has had a pitiful display from British Railways in the costings which they have been able to make available to us. The last official costing obtained from British Railways was £120 million. We now know that the figure is likely to be well in excess of £300 million. We do not yet know what the fully escalated cost will be, the cost which fully reflects the interest charges on the rail link, or the cost which will include the full costs of compensation. It may well be that the total cost of the rail link—all of which will be met by the taxpayer—will be about half or two-thirds on top of the cost of the Channel Tunnel itself.
I believe that we should vote against the motion. We should not give the substantial legislative powers and treaty powers—which would be given if we pass this motion—until the House is better provided with the essential financial information that we should have.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. John Horam: I am not an expert on collective responsibility—as I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is these days—or an expert on the railways and the Channel Tunnel as are some of my hon. Friends who have spoken today. Nor am I a member of the Tribune group, which appears to be one identifying feature amongst many of those who have spoken against the Channel Tunnel.

Mr. Cryer: May I point out to my hon. Friend that it would be unfortunate if he chose to identify criticisms with any particular group. A large proportion of

the support has come from people who are also members of the Tribune group.

Mr. Horam: I was about to point out to my hon. Friend that I am not a member of the Tribune group. I, too, am against this project, speaking though I do from a position of woeful ignorance, not being a member of the Tribune group or an expert on railways or the Channel Tunnel, and so on, and I have never previously spoken on this subject in the House.
In acknowledgment of that fact, and as I have not been in the House for the last hour or so, though I attended the earlier part of the debate, I intend to speak only briefly.
This is not fundamentally a project which is in the national interest. As time goes on, it appears to be less and less in the national interest. One of this country's outstanding problems is that we are failing to generate enough cash for investment. In these circumstances, it must be right, in principle, to avoid large-scale projects with long lead times which are inherently, because of that fact, more of a gamble, and instead to concentrate on small-scale projects which are more flexible and from which we can know the scale of return more rapidly and accurately.
In this case it means not going ahead with the Channel Tunnel but instead concentrating our facilities and resources on developing roll-on-roll-off facilities along the east coast of this country. That is the right way to spend the money and the right area in which to spend it—the right area geographically.
That brings me to my second point. While it is certainly not in the interests of the country that we should have a Channel Tunnel, I believe it is even less in the interests of the region I represent—together with many other hon. Members—the Northern Region.
Basically, my point is about the allocation of scarce resources. At times of economic stringency—my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover and for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) rightly talked about the need for social priorities at such a time—I believe that both human justice and economic common sense point towards directing the scarce resources we have to those regions and areas of our country where there are unemployed resources to


be brought into use. That is the fundamental point. I cannot conceive of a project more ill-suited to that particular point, and my own interests in the Northern Region, than one in the very toe of the south-east of England.
I know that some of my hon. Friends who are members of the National Union of Railwaymen are in favour of the project because they believe it is in the interests of the railway. However, as we have) seen already, and as has been referred to more than once, there are two sides to that story. Though I support railway investment in principle, I am against this sort of railway investment in this sort of area. In my view, this project should be abandoned. Therefore, I cannot support the Government on this motion.
So far, I am very disappointed in what I can see of the Government's general approach to regional development problems and to devolution, which is part of regional development. In particular, I am disappointed in their approach to the Northern Region, which is doubly at a disadvantage not only by comparison now with the South and the Midlands, but also with Scotland, strengthened as it is by the oil boom which is now developing in parts of that country.
Therefore, we are at a double disadvantage, and the only help we have had from the Government so far is a doubling of the regional employment premium, which merely restores it to the 1967 level. That, too, was done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not by the Secretary of State for Industry, which is the key Department in this area.
Until there are more coherent and more directed policies from the Secretary of State for Industry in the matter of regional development—given that we are moving into a period of increasing economic stringency when valid choices must be made, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover, between very difficult alternative projects—I feel that this may not be the last time that I shall withhold my support from the Government until they do something about this matter.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I had arranged to be in Italy this weekend, but as soon as this debate was announced, I took the view that it

was essential to come back to this country in view of my constituency problems. When I found that I could not get back before three o'clock, I abandoned the weekend. Little did I think that the procedure motion debate would follow the course that it has taken.
Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam)—and I recall that he was my election opponent three or four elections ago—and appreciating that he is one of the few hon. Members who know the problems of Folkestone, I was surprised that he introduced the subject—and I do not intend to follow his example—of the effect on the North-East region.
I have participated in all the debates and discussions about the Channel Tunnel. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) mentioned five debates. He has forgotten the private motion that I moved some six debates ago in the far and distant past. I raised the subject then, some eight or nine years ago, because my constituency has been inflicted for nearly 11 years with the shadow of the Channel Tunnel.
I do not enter this debate with the idea of seeking to heal the breach between the parties opposite. I said in the General Election that if the Labour Party got back to power, there would soon be a split between the left, right and middle. Little did I think that a month and a day would pass before the split that we are seeing today.
I am anxious that this matter should be cleared up. The future happiness of my constituents depends on what happens about the development of the Channel Tunnel. I have a number of constituents whose houses are affected. In Standing Committee we were able to obtain an assurance that when the Bill went through, such people would get their proper compensation.
I have a number of constituents who are very much affected. One has been affected for 11 years. We should not allow a procedure motion or a split in the Labour Party to push these people further back in the queue.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has put forward the same arguments in each of the debates. They would be jolly good arguments if they were accurate. The same mistakes are


repeated time and again. I would be out of order if I were to pursue this.
We are discussing whether the Channel Tunnel Bill should be reincarnated at the First Reading stage or whether we should take it over where we left it in the last Parliament. Some hon. Members have been speaking as if they had only to vote against this motion and they would kill the whole Bill. I ask them to reflect on this. The House knows that I have been quite enthusiastic about the Bill because I realise that we need some facilities at Folkestone and cannot have them in present conditions.
If those who are opposed to the Bill allow the motion to go through and we move to Report stage, I hope that amendments will be allowed to range rather wider than one would normally expect for a Bill that has come, as a virgin as it were, from Committee. We shall then have the opportunity to discuss the amendments. I have a number of them, occasioned because British Railways have not shown the same understanding of constituency problems as has been shown by the Channel Tunnel Association and RTZ. British Railways' public relations are even worse than their timetables.
If they want to get measures through with the support of this House, they have to learn that there must be greater attention to and consideration of our constituents than has been the case. I commend to them the experience we have had with RTZ which has managed this rather well and gone to incredible trouble to meet our constituents. If there are those who want to dowse the Bill and who think that by voting against the motion tonight they will dowse it for good and all, then they are wrong. Surely they understand the rules of the House sufficiently to appreciate that if this is lost the Government can immediately, next week if they wish, introduce a new Channel Tunnel Bill.
What the opponents of the Bill should do is to vote for the motion and let the Bill go to Report and then beat it at Third Reading. If they do that, the Bill cannot be introduced for another 12 months. That would really scotch it. If they stop it, what alternative proposals do they have? If we abandon the tunnel and they whoop with joy saying that Kent

has been saved, they present Kent with an even greater problem.
The majority of Kent Members are in favour of the tunnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) has always been against it, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has put up some cogent arguments against it and I admire him for it. If he succeeds in killing the Channel Tunnel, how will he explain to his constituents the enormous amount of extra travelling they will have to undertake? That is his problem, not mine.
Tonight we have to decide whether we put this Bill back or whether we decide to save my local authority further expense. It has already spent £25,000. I do not know where the Minister got the figure of £40,000 for all Kent authorities. I have here a letter written by my local chief executive saying that the district has already spent £20,000 to £25,000. I imagine that the total spent by the local authorities in Kent is more than £100,000.

Mr. Mulley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting that figure. I did not want to be accused of exaggeration. I do not have access to the figures, which are private to the local authorities, and I formed an estimate on the advice of parliamentary agents. I did not seek to collect the figures. What the hon. Gentleman says strengthens my argument.

Mr. Costain: I am grateful to the Minister. The Bill has been hanging over the heads of my constituents for 11 years. If we reject the motion tonight and the Bill is reintroduced there will be another nine months' gestation. Whether at the end of the nine months we shall produce a white elephant, I do not know, but in fairness to my constituents and to the procedure of the House, we should approve the motion.

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: It has been said that a lawyer can drive a coach and pair through an Act of Parliament. The Government are apparently attempting to drive freight and passenger trains, motor cars and heavy lorries through the procedure of the House of Commons. I have no objection to changing the procedure of the House of Commons if the change is justifiable. I cannot, therefore.


agree that it is not justifiable to carry over a Bill from one Session to another if it is in the same Parliament. When it is in a different Parliament, however, it is absolutely indefensible, because it breaches a constitutional rule that one Parliament is not bound by the decisions of its predecessor. That is the kind of action that the Government are trying to take tonight, and I am utterly opposed to it.
Apart from that, I am opposed to the principle of the Channel Tunnel Bill. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), in his honeyed accents, says that this is only a procedural matter, but in my opinion it is the thin end of the wedge, and at the risk of mixing my metaphors I want to nip it in the bud before it gets any further. I do not want to wait for Report stage, as the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) suggested. I want to nip it in the bud right away.
Several hon. Members are trying to get the Secretary of State for Industry to approach the Cabinet for £80 million to save a vitally necessary project, the HS146, and with it the whole of the British civil aircraft industry. The Secretary of State for Industry, while sympathetic to our cause, has not yet said that he is able to get this money from the Cabinet because of the economic situation. Yet the Government are gaily flinging caution to the winds and proposing to embark on a project that will cost £1,500 million at today's prices.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) argued that the taxpayer will not have to pay one penny of the £1,500 million, but a guarantee by the British Government is a responsibility or a commitment to fork out the money if need be. Therefore, we have to take it that the Government are committed to 90 per cent. of £1,500 million if need be. That is indefensible in view of the economic situation. Much more vitally important projects will have to be shelved for the present because of the crisis, a crisis which will baffle the strongest of Governments. We are told, however, that we shall embark on another project, not nearly as important, which will cost £1,500 million.
The only excuse which could be offered which would cause me to vote for the project would be if the Government could prove that the money we would lose by getting out of it would be greater than

the money we would spend by going into it. The Government have not convinced me of that and, therefore, with great regret, I shall not be in the Government Lobby tonight.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. John Moore: I shall endeavour to be brief and may concern myself with the procedural motion, which might be somewhat unusual.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am glad that the hon. Member is drawing the attention of the House to the subject matter under discussion.

Mr. Moore: My constituency in Croydon has not been mentioned yet it has a marked involvement in the project, as do Kent and Surrey constituencies. I am in some difficulty in knowing which way to cast my vote tonight. Despite being in fundamental agreement with the Channel Tunnel project, I have difficulty in understanding and accepting the rationale of the Government Front Bench.
I listened to what was said with considerable care but I require a great deal of convincing on the need for the establishment of a precedent. Later in the Session we are to debate the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill, in connection with which similar suggestions may be made for overriding established procedures. There has to be a crying need before we can agree to the establishment of a precedent. It has not yet been proved to me either from my constituency's point of view or from the Channel Tunnel point of view that there is urgency, and urgency surely must be shown before we create a precedent.
I draw attention to what the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill:
If it is not possible to have a Report stage before the recess, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there will be a suitable motion put down to carry it forward."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 18th July 1974; c. 118.]
I accept that the Under-Secretary of State was unable to arrange a Report stage because of the recess. However, the Government were capable of producing a flood of White Papers during the recess. They clearly knew that an election was coming, and if they could produce a series of White Papers they could have


set up a formal procedural motion prior to the dissolution of Parliament.
I am concerned about the timing. Discussion of the procedural motion seems to have taken a strange course. It is suggested that this is the end or the beginning of the tunnel. It is not. If the project is so vital, and if time is so urgent in advance of the ratification of the treaty, it should be possible for the Government to reintroduce the Bill even if the motion is lost tonight. We should then have the opportuinty for debate.
Whether we vote "Yea" or "Nay" is irrelevant in considering the £30 million. The £30 million is committed and will be spent. We are talking about approximately £6 million referred to by the Minister.
What I am concerned about, and what leaves me in great doubt as to the way I shall vote, is my memory of the Standing Committee proceedings. In that respect I must think of my constituents' interests, and those interests seem to argue for delay. I should like to draw attention to what was said during the fourth sitting of the Standing Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill when we were arguing for improved compensation features. Conservative Members of the Committee were concerned about the need for improving compensation for those affected by this vital national development. We argued that the blight in this instance was different from the normal planning blight and on that occasion we had great sympathy from the Under-Secretary of State. However, our amendment was not able to be accepted in the Standing Committee.
Let me quote what the Minister said on that occasion:
The real difficulty arises, however, when we try to include these provisions in the Bill, not in a statement made by my right hon. Friend. It would almost certainly introduce a further element of hybridity and the Bill would have to go back to be examined, and perhaps an opportunity provided for an additional petition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 23rd July 1974; c. 210.]
Despite the sympathy of the Minister on that occasion, we were told that the Bill was so constructed that it would not be possible to provide the compensation features which all of us representing constituency interests were seeking. Clearly, that one factor means that unless there

is shown to be a crying need for this provision—a need which has not been proved to me—we should think in terms of delay in allowing the Bill to go forward again. We believe that the clause on which we had a certain amount of sympathy from the Minister should be reintroduced with the new Bill. There would seem to be unanimity on that point.
Although we have endeavoured to talk about the procedural motion, there has been discussion on the overall costs of the rail link and their relative escalation. I hope to have a denial of the fact that the figures have not increased massively from the £120 million which was discussed in Committee. Obviously, in the debate many hon. Members have endeavoured to defend their constituency interests and it has been said that the figures have increased substantially. Have they increased to £350 million, £450 million or £500 million? I am not merely bandying figures, becase I realise that one must be responsible when dealing with these matters, but, if the figures are in that category, does this not substantially change the possible commercial nature of the project? If so, does it not raise fundamental questions on the whole nature of the project?
I say all these things as a supporter of the project. I await with great interest and concern the Minister's reply because I repeat that unless far better arguments are adduced, I am in doubt whether I can support the motion.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Berry: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) said that he was in some doubt as to how to vote on the motion. Those who recall the early hours of 11th October will appreciate that my hon. Friend's constituents also appeared to be in some doubt about how to vote, but at the risk of uniting the Labour Party for the first time tonight, let me say that we are glad that they voted as they did.
The debate has had about it a mixture of a Consolidation Fund Bill debate and a series of maiden speeches in which hon. Members have raised constituency problems. I shall try to take neither course but to try to speak strictly to the motion.
It is appropriate that we should be debating this subject on a day when in the


Channel the hovercraft and other services come to an end for the time being. Let us not assume that the termination of the service happens only in the winter. On 1st August my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), the right hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving) and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) and I went over the Channel in the hovercraft to visit the Channel Tunnel works on the other side. However, we could not get back on that day in August because the crossing was too rough for the hovercraft. We wished that we had had the opportunity to return through the tunnel. Incidentally, we saw the beginnings of the works at Folkestone, and we can well appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain).
I believe that we should come to a decision on this matter as soon as possible. Many participants in the debate appear to have missed the point. They have asked questions, but so many seem to have based their arguments against the procedure motion on a wrong premise. If we defeat the motion we shall destroy the whole idea of the Channel Tunnel. The discussions in Standing Committee were of immense importance and I was disappointed at what happened following the Minister's assurance that the motion would be tabled before the Summer Recess. We all know that that did not happen, although it is past history and I shall not argue that matter further.
I am also concerned about the situation affecting the Caircross Committee. When the Minister moved the Second Reading of the Bill last April we mocked him slightly because the Government were putting forward a Conservative Bill—a measure against which they had voted the previous December. One of the reasons then given by the Minister for his change of attitude was that the Government had decided that there must be a further inquiry which would be set up as soon as possible. We welcomed that statement. We were later told that the inquiry would complete its investigations in the early months of next year. We are now over half way through that period and still the committee is hardly in existence and has not got very far, if any distance at all, with its investigations. I know that the Minister of Transport has great responsibilities, but I

believe that on this occasion he has been rather slow in taking action.
Much play has been made in the debate with the rights of back benchers in the face of Governments forcing through Bills from one Parliament to another following an election. I believe it is right that that should be so. One opposer of the Bill, an industrialist, wrote to me and said that if there were a precedent established tonight the Government after Third Reading might even reintroduce the 1970 Ports Bill. I assure that correspondent that that is not likely to happen, although perhaps I was the right person for him to approach.
What is clear from the debate is that back benchers are doubtful about the procedure. I believe that the argument is right that the Government should reintroduce the Bill at this stage, but back benchers seek to make the point that no Government of any party will get away with these things automatically at any time in the future.
It must be remembered that in Standing Committee there was a most important discussion of compensation. We tabled a new clause entitled "Compensation in respect of Proposals of British Railways Board". At the end of that Committee and before Parliament rose for the summer I tabled an identical new clause for Report stage. I warn the Minister that if we pass the motion tonight I shall table that clause yet again, because it is vital that the rights of constituents in Kent, London, Surrey and Sussex should be fully protected.
With those provisos, I think it is right that back benchers should express the view that they regard these matters very seriously indeed, but in the special circumstances I shall support the Government.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: May I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on your good fortune in coming into the Chamber just in time to hear my speech?
I should like briefly to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry). Most of those of us who now remain in the Chamber took an active part in the Committee on the Bill. I should go through the rigmarole again of


saying that I still have the few RTZ shares that I spoke about before and that I am a member of the Railway Correspendence and Travel Society. I am not a member of the Tribune group, I am not in awe of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is not present, and I am not a member of the National Union of Railwaymen.
The problem tonight is that we are all making the same speeches that we have made before—but that is probably the strongest argument for supporting the unusual procedure that the Government propose. No one could really suggest that this subject has not had a thorough parliamentary airing. I certainly see nothing to make me change my views, which have always been of support for this project.
We regularly hear that the public are fed up with squabbling politicians. This is one of those issues for which, with a number of honourable exceptions whose views have been sincerly and consistently expressed, like my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), the majority of hon. Members have expressed support. That also should not be considered a fearful conspiracy, especially when people complain about politicians who say "Yes" simply because someone else says "No".
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) referred to the need for consistency among politicians. I did not intervene to remind him that the majority in favour of our application to join the Common Market in 1967 was 466. Some in the then Labour Government have apparently changed their views since. But the consistency shown by many hon. Members on the Channel Tunnel is still evident tonight.
We have heard, not surprisingly, the inevitable discussions about outside toilets in Perry Barr and schools in Keighley. To my knowledge, neither RTZ nor British Rail is in the business of building schools or outside lavatories. We have to keep reminding ourselves that this project will not be financed by the Department of Education or the Department of the Environment. Nor, I must regretfully remind certain hon. Members, is it possible to build the tunnel from Aberdeen.
The cost of not proceeding at this stage would be a cost to public funds. I recognise that it would be nothing in comparison with the total cost of building the tunnel, but if it is accepted that the majority of hon. Members have consistently supported the tunnel it will be seen that to reject the motion would be deliberately to put a burden on public funds.
As a supporter of British Rail and a railway enthusiast, for which I do not apologise, I regard this project not as a squandering of money but as a major investment in our railway system. To prove that I have no doctrinaire blood in me, I would say that I want to see British Rail successful. The Channel Tunnel will give enormous opportunities to the railways to offer really attractive rates for long-distance freight, which they have lacked in the past.
I have one final reason for supporting the Government. I have a niggling fear that this may be the first of many occasions stretching over the months ahead when the social democrats of the Labour Party Front Bench, or most of them, will need a great deal of help and support. We have seen what I might call the Taverne-Milne-Griffiths clan dealt with in recent months. I look fretfully ahead to the time when the Government recommend to the House acceptance of the magnificently renegotiated terms for staying in the Common Market and a special National Executive Committee meeting of the Labour Party decides that the proposals should be rejected, leading to internal fratricide the like of which we have not seen for many a long day on the benches opposite.
Therefore, on the basis—I put it no higher—of taking a stance which I suspect some of us, if we are to support Parliament and what we believe to be in the national interest, are likely to have to take in the coming months, I shall be going into the Lobby with the Government tonight.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Conlon: The second speech that I made in this House after my election in 1964 was on an agriculture Bill. For my sins as an engineer speaking on agriculture, I was put on the committee dealing with the Bill. That committee sat many times


and before we had completed our work the Prime Minister decided on an election. After the election, I and others were put on precisely the same committee and did over again the work we had done before over many months.
I thought then that was a complete waste of time and taxpayers' money, and that, if we could find some device for avoiding a similar occurrence, that would be in the interests of the House, the taxpayer and certainly those unfortunates who had to sit on the relevant committees. So the Government are right to make this recommendation. If the motion were rejected, precisely the same Bill would be presented to go through First Reading, Second Reading and Committee all over again. The House of Commons would be treated to similar proposals which it would be recommended to approve.
The return to the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) reminds me of a lovely story. My hon. Friend opposes the motion. It is no secret—he makes no secret of his views at any time—that he is also opposed to the Common Market. The story I heard was that another of my hon. Friends once said that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover was so much opposed to the Common Market that the next things he would oppose were French letters and Dutch caps. Whether that story is true I do not know, but some people who are passionately opposed to the Common Market are probably opposing this motion for the wrong reasons—

Mr. Skinner: No—I am a vasectomist.

Mr. Conlan: My hon. Friend has an advantage over me, then.
We have to treat this matter purely and simply as a question of procedure. If the House is opposed to the building of the tunnel, surely that decision will be taken on Third Reading. Why commit us to proceeding with the work which has already been started if all that is necessary is for the House to decide yea or nay about the Channel Tunnel? As I understand it, unless the motion is approved the nation will be committed to expenditure without necessarily getting the work and construction completed.

Whether or not the work is done, money will be spent.
Those of us from the provinces would prefer that some of the expenditure be made on the regions instead of on the Channel Tunnel. I think that tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will have a considerable amount of bad news for us. Many of our cherished hopes and dreams for the future will be smashed. My hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, West (Mr. Horam) and Blaydon (Mr. Woof) are discussing with the Secretary of State for Social Services the cherished hope of a hospital in their area. We would prefer the money to be spent on such projects in the regions, but we must not deceive the House and the nation about the importance of the motion tonight. If it is approved, a great deal of money, time and Members' inconvenience will be saved and the House will still reserve to itself the final decision on the Channel Tunnel. The House should therefore approve the motion and get on with the business before it.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan), I shall oppose the motion tonight in the Division Lobby. I shall not take a great deal of time to explain why.
The motion would have been better brought before us on Wednesday, the day after the Budget, when we would more fully have understood where the Government's spending priorities lie in what is allegedly a very precarious economic situation. I should like to lay a wager that if the debate had taken place the day after instead of the day before the Budget, we might have had a different result in the Division tonight. What we most definitely would not have had was theoretical argument about destroying some of our sacred cows in our constituencies, because after tomorrow there will probably be no theory involved in the argument. Tomorrow, every hon. Member will have projects of one kind or another of social importance to him and his constituents probably falling by the wayside.
I oppose the motion because as we progress each step of the way it will become more and more difficult for Parliament to stop the Channel Tunnel


project. Some hon. Members have mentioned that a project of this sort takes on a momentum of its own and rolls on in spite of any opposition to it. There are innumerable examples in the history of public expenditure since 1945 which prove that, once Parliament and the Government embark upon a folly, they never turn back from it but simply continue to pour money into it. And so it is likely to be with the Channel Tunnel. I oppose the motion because it paves the way for the Bill and the Bill paves the way towards the final commitment by the British people to the Channel Tunnel.
I am not opposed to a channel tunnel. I am an anti-Common Market member of the Labour Party but I am not a fool. I should like to see our communications with the Continent improved. In principle, no one could oppose the improvement of communications systems, but this is a question of priorities. I am in favour of the sun shining all day and the rain only coming on at night, but I know that that is not likely to happen. In the same way, I am in favour of the Channel Tunnel but not with our present economic circumstances.
I have no hesitation in voting against the motion tonight because it was not contained in the Labour Party manifesto or in the Queen's Speech. It was one of those measures which was to be laid before us at a later date.
I know my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary very well. Like me he is a Scottish Member and he represents the Kelvingrove division of Glasgow. He comes from a family with impeccable Socialist credentials. Not only is he involved in politics, but members of his family are involved in Socialist politics, so I know that I am speaking to the converted when I say that the language of Socialism must be the choice of priorities.
In present circumstances, can a Labour Government actively involve themselves in something that could lead to an enormous expenditure when, by our own admission, by the admission of the way we campaigned before 10th October, we have an enormous problem in housing the homeless? So enormous is the problem that we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State

for the Environment the ridiculous statement that he is thinking of solving the immediate housing problem with a new generation of prefabricated houses and mobile homes. What sort of priority is it that allows us to contemplate the Channel Tunnel when we are telling the homeless that perhaps a new generation of prefabs, a caravan or a mobile home site is the best means that the Socialist Party holds out for ending that acute family problem?
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's wife—I do not say this unfairly, as he well knows—is involved as a Socialist in Scotland in asking for better social provision for underprivileged children. She is on record as condemning the system which in Scotland produces children in the West Central part who are condemned to fail from the minute they are born. What sort of system of priorities is it that permits us to know of that problem and yet support and contemplate the Channel Tunnel project?
My hon. Friend is also aware that North-East Scotland will bear the infrastructure burden for the whole of the British isles in the course of the extraction of North Sea oil. We cannot get a motorway built where the A9 already runs, although on any count we should be entitled to expenditure on road-building there. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) referred earlier to the claim by British Rail in Scotland that it could not get the necessary £6 million to invest in facilitating the transport of certain basic materials to the North Sea oilfields. Yet here we are talking of going ahead with the Channel Tunnel.
One hon. Member argued that this might be an acceptable area for public expenditure. If the Government have money available—I question that—for public expenditure and transport, they should look at transport in the rural areas and in the cities where the systems are breaking down and where whole sections of the population, young and old, who cannot drive a motor car because of age or financial circumstances are being deprived of reasonable transport facilities.
Tomorrow afternoon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is likely to come before us and say that we are in a highly precarious economic circumstance.


Every one of us as constituency Members, as the Socialist Party, as the Opposition party, as the Scottish National Party and the Welsh National Party, will have to mark time on a number of projects that we wish to see progress. It will be impossible for me to listen to that tomorrow afternoon after what I have listened to today.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Gentleman said that he did not include the tunnel in his election address, but he appears to be telling the House that he is privy to information that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tomorrow make slashing cuts in public expenditure. Was that in the hon. Gentleman's election address?

Mr. Sillars: The hon. Gentleman should not confuse my election address with the Labour Party manifesto. There are on occasions differences. The hon. Gentleman should refer to the concluding speech in the debate on the Queen's Speech by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. That speech, in my view, gave us a trailer for tomorrow's Budget Statement. I am no more privy to Budget secrets than is the hon. Gentleman, but I am at least a half-intelligent member of society and I think I know what is going on and what we are likely to be told tomorrow.
I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that we are a Socialist Government in power and that this time we should get our priorities right, but by no stretch of the imagination can this project be included in our correct priorities.

8.10 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): This has been an extremely interesting and full debate. Those of us who have taken part in previous debates on the Channel Tunnel have already heard many of the arguments. During the last Second Reading debate on this matter I suggested that if the project came up again hon. Members who are regular speakers in these debates might start sending their speeches by post to one another.
This is an important question. I do not want to deal individually with all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, but I welcome back to the House the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) who today made what I might call his

second maiden speech. In his previous incarnation in Parliament he was in the post that I now hold.
I hope that in dealing with a number of subjects connected with the tunnel I might be able to touch on various points raised by hon. Members. In the last Parliament I promised that a motion would be produced, but that was not possible because Parliament was in recess when the General Election was called. I do not know what arguments would have been put forward had a motion been put down at that time. The arguments might have been similar to those we have heard today, with the exception that we would have been blamed for anticipating what the next Parliament might do rather than for carrying over the matter from that Parliament to this one, about which there have been complaints on this occasion.
A number of hon. Members referred to the present economic and financial situation. The White Paper published by the Conservative administration in September 1973 estimated the cost of the Channel Tunnel project, exclusive of the rail link, at £468 million in 1973 prices or £846 million in outturn prices allowing for inflation, the cost of raising the money and servicing the debts during the construction period.
The rate of inflation and the cost of borrowing money has obviously increased since these figures were computed and they are all subject to revision in the course of the current phase II studies. It would however be naïve to argue that inflationary trends have of themselves put paid to the project, since inflation affects also the revenue side of the equation. Whether it does so to exactly the same extent is again something which will come out of the phase II studies and should not be prejudged one way or another.

Mr. Stanley: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the revenue involved is made up from at least 60 per cent. of holiday people taking their cars to the Continent for their holidays and that the rate of buoyancy of that pattern of holiday traffic is much more likely to be influenced by the cost of motoring rather than by the general level of inflation, either in this country or overseas?

Mr. Carmichael: There have been changes and these will have to be considered during the phase II studies. The various matters raised, including future traffic trends, will be looked at.
There is no denying that the increased cost of fuel, particularly oil, must be expected to have some effect on costs and travel habits. On the other hand the tunnel as an efficient means of crossing the Channel, with access to electricity generated from more than one fuel source, is less affected than some modes by rising oil costs. I can assure the House that all these considerations are being taken fully into account and will emerge as part of the final assessment before decisions have to be taken.
I recognise the body of opinion which regards as inappropriate the commitment of sums of such magnitude to this project in times of economic stringency. Many hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) raised this point.
I should, however, point out that in the nature of the project only half of the total cost falls to be raised on this side of the Channel. What is more, none of the cost falls on the Exchequer except in the event that the Governments could conceivably be called upon to honour their guarantees of the loan finance. There can thus be no question of diverting the money concerned to the projects in the public sector to which some hon. Members might wish to give higher priority. If the question is restated as one of real resources we must, I suggest, consider the possibility that in the absence of a tunnel the total investment ultimately necessary to accommodate the volume of cross-Channel traffic predicted might exceed the cost of investing in a tunnel.
This does not, I recognise, meet the arguments of those who are specifically concerned with employment in, for example, Dover and other ports which existing modes of crossing the Channel provide. I can, however, reiterate previous assurances made in Select Committee and elsewhere that these aspects will be fully taken into account in the United Kingdom transport cost-benefit study which is currently being revised. Having regard also to the work of the Cairncross Group, which I emphasise has full opportunity to consider such aspects of the

project as it sees necessary, I can assure the House that there is no risk of decisions being taken next year without proper consideration of every aspect raised in debate today.
One point rightly brought out by a number of hon. Members, particularly those from the South-East, was that relating to the rail link and its cost. The White Paper published by the Conservative administration last September estimated the cost of the high-speed rail link at about £120 million in 1973 prices. British Rail have since then been developing the scheme and the estimate, which even allowing for inflation is clearly now likely to be substantially higher. A number of major environmental aspects of the route are, however, still very much under consideration, and until both the local authorities, British Rail and the Department have had an opportunity to reach a definitive view of these aspects and options it would be premature to venture revised figures or, even more important, seek to interpret them in terms of return on the investment concerned. I can, however, assure the House that figures will be published as soon as possible and in any case well before any decision has to be taken about the tunnel itself.
I recognise, of course, that Exchequer investment in the rail link must be distinguished from private investment in the tunnel itself, and that we are in times of some economic stringency. This has been stressed by a number of hon. Members, particularly on the Government side of the House.
The expenditure concerned will not, however, arise for some time and may not lie within the range of measures which the Government may have in mind for dealing with our immediate problems. It may be possible that any decisions by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow will not really affect the question of whether we should build the rail link—

Mr. Sillars: I take my hon. Friend's point that expenditure may not arise until some time in the future. Suppose, however, that as a result of tomorrow's announcements a hospital project is postponed for five years. Would it not have to compete five years hence with other claims on public expenditure for projects such as the tunnel?

Mr. Carmichael: At that point a decision would need to be made on the priority. The Government are suggesting that these matters will be thoroughly examined, including the time scale, and that a decision will be made when it is required to put out the money for this development. The decision will be made in terms of the best return for the outlay of money in a transport sense—namely, the development of the ports and the roads and various considerations involving the tunnel. These matters will be discussed and developed at great length by the Government.
I now turn to another matter that affects the people living in the South-East—namely, the rail link and the noise that may arise from it. There are environmental problems which must be considered. One of the factors which we and British Rail will need to take into account in deciding on the route is the noise likely to be caused by the running of high-speed trains. British Rail have measured noise levels on the sensitive areas of the line using special equipment which has enabled them to make realistic predictions of the noise likely to arise from the proposed use of the line. These surveys were completed in mid-October and British Rail are now preparing contour maps based on predictions from these measurements.
British Rail hope that those maps will be available for the more sensitive areas of the route—including Tonbridge, Croydon, Paddock Wood and Ashford—by the end of November, and further contour maps will follow for other sections of the line. I recognise entirely that local authorities cannot be expected to express a final view of particular route options until they have an opportunity to study those maps. This is one of the factors to be taken into account in reviewing the timetable for decisions on the British Rail Private Bill.

Mr. Speed: Will the maps be available for the general public or only for the local authorities?

Mr. Carmichael: They will be the property of British Rail.
I now turn to the question of a public inquiry. It is obvious that as much information as possible would need to be given at a public inquiry to enable a

decision to be made on the high speed line.
Hon. Members will need no reminding that the Private Bill procedures through which British Rail must seek the necessary statutory powers to construct a new railway line will include Select Committee proceedings in both Houses, during which those who are affected by the proposals can petition against them. Such persons can certainly include groups representing amenity or environmental interests. There would be distinct disadvantages in supplementing these proceedings with a preliminary public inquiry. One of these disadvantages would be that the period and area of planning blight would be considerably extended. Many hon. Members are aware that planning blight has been a big enough problem already.
Another disadvantage is that the case of petitioners in Select Committee might well be weakened if the findings of the inquiry were against them. However, at a recent meeting with Surrey and Kent Action on Rail—SKAR—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would be prepared to consider the adequacy of arrangements to take account of the views of objectors once British Rail's proposals for the route of the link were submitted to him. I cannot yet say what the outcome of this further consideration may be, but I know the House will welcome and respect my right hon. Friend's assurance.
Considerable interest has been expressed about the Cairncross Group. My right hon. Friend on Second Reading said that he was unhappy about certain aspects of the Channel Tunnel project as a whole and he wished to have it examined by an independent body. He had in mind not a strict parliamentary committee or a Royal Commission but a group which could be considered to be above suspicion and totally independent.
The Secretary of State was fortunate in securing the services of Sir Alec Cairncross as the chairman; Mr. David Lea, who is secretary of the economic department of the Trades Union Congress; Mr. Sargent, a Group Economic Adviser of the Midland Bank; and Professor Alan Wilson, who is the Professor of Urban and Regional Geography at the University of Leeds. There are no formal


terms of reference. The rôle of the group is principally to advise the Government on the calibre of the phase II studies on which the decision whether to proceed with the main construction of phase III must, in economic and financial terms, eventually rest. A report will be made available from the group before Parliament is asked to take that decision. Other appointments are due to be made, but the immediate issues are largely economic and all the economists required are already appointed.
The group has already got down to the initial phase of its work, which concentrates on evaluating the character of the phase II studies at a stage where additional work can still be commissioned if necessary to corroborate any items on which the group would not expect the Government necessarily to be satisfied at a later stage.

Mr. Moate: Can the Minister explain how the group can settle down to work when, apparently, its membership is not yet complete? Also, can he say why it has taken eight months to set up this committee?

Mr. Carmichael: In fact, I said:
Other appointments are due to be made, but the immediate issues are largely economic and all the economists required are already appointed.

Mr. Peter Rees: rose—

Mr. Carmichael: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I prefer not to give way because I shall be finished very soon. We have had a very long debate and I have given way to a fair number of hon. Members.

Mr. Peter Rees: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman but I put this question to his right hon. Friend earlier in the debate. Will people be per-

mitted to make representations to and give evidence to the Cairncross Group?

Mr. Carmichael: Certainly people will be able—as they can now—to submit written evidence to the Cairncross Group. I think that the group may well supplement that evidence by oral evidence, and it is at complete liberty to do so if it so wishes, but it would accept written evidence now. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is so.
'The group enjoys substantial latitude in developing its procedures. It is, of course, open to the group to consider evidence from interested parties—this is the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, and it is exactly what I said earlier. If the committee wishes it can have oral evidence, or the public are entitled and perfectly free to submit written evidence to it.
If the Channel Tunnel Bill is once enacted, no further legislation is necessary to enable the main construction phase to proceed. I want to be very clear about this. Parliament would, however, be given the opportunity to vote on so important a question before any such final decision was taken, possibly by means of a further White Paper or similar document associated, of course, with the report of the Cairncross Group.
I cannot be any stronger than this. My right hon. Friends and I are just as anxious to have the final and independent appraisal of the Cairncross Group. If this motion is carried this evening—and I certainly hope that it is—we still have the Report stage, Third Reading and the proceedings in another place. After that, Parliament will still be given the final decision as to whether the project as a whole should continue. I hope that the House will approve the motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 168, Noes 115.

Division No. 6.]
AYES
[8.30 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Booth, Albert
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Concannon, J. D.


Armstrong, Ernest
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Conlan, Bernard


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Cook, Robin F. (Edin. C.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Broughton, Sir Alfred
Costain, A. P.


Barnett, Joel (Heywood)
Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Pr)
Cox, Thomas (Wands Toot)


Bates, Alf
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast)


Benn, Rt Hn Anthony Wedgwood
Carmichael, Neil
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Benyon, W. R.
Clemitson, I. M.
Crouch, David


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Davles, Ifor (Gower)


Boardman, H.
Cohen, Stanley
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)




Davis, S. Clinton (Hackney C)
Irvine, Rt. Hon Sir A. (L'pool)
Rodgers, William (Teesside)


Deakins, Eric
Jackson, Miss M. (Lincoln)
Roper, John


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Janner, Greville
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilm'nock)


Dempsey, James
John, Brynmor
Rowlands, Ted


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Johnson, James (Kingston W)
Sandelson, Neville


Duffy, A. E. P.
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Sheldon, R. (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Dunwoody, Mrs G. P.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silkin, Rt Hn John (Lewish)


Eadie, Alex
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Edelman, Maurice
Judd, Frank
Small, William


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Kaufman, Gerald
Snape, Peter


Emery, Peter
Lamond, James
Speed, Keith


Ennals, David
Leadbitter, Ted
Spicer, James (W Dorset)


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


Eyre, Reginald
Luard, Evan
Steen, Anthony (Liverpool)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W.)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Faulds, Andrew
McElhone, Frank
Stott, Roger


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacGregor, John
Strang, Gavin


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C.)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle)


Fraser, John (Lambeth N)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Tinn, James


Freeson, Reginald
Magee, Bryan
Torney, Tom


George, Bruce
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Urwin, T. W.


Gilbert, Dr John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Ginsburg, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Golding, John
Meacher, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grant, John (Islington C.)
Mikardo, Ian
Ward, Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Millan, Bruce
Watkins, David


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moonman, Eric
Weetch, Ken


Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Weitzman, David


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Wells, John


Harper, Joseph
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Whitehead, Phillip


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hatton, Frank
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, Alan (Swansea)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Oakes, Gordon
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Heffer, Eric S.
Ogden, Eric
Winterton, Nicholas


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Parker, John
Woodall, A.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pendry, Tom



Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rathbone, T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hunter, Adam
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Mr. J. D. Dormand and Mr. Walter Johnson.




NOES


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Pardoe, John


Beith, A. J.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Park, G.


Bell, Ronald
Kelley, Richard
Parry, Robert


Body, Richard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Penhaligon, David


Brotherton, Michael
Kinnock, Neil
Perry, Ernest


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Lambie, David
Phipps, Dr C.


Campbell, Ian
Lee, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Canavan, Dennis
Litterick, Tom
Prescott, John


Cartwright, John
Lomas, Kenneth
Price, C. (Lewisham W.)


Clark, Alan (Plymouth S)
Loyden, Eddie
Reid, George


Clark, William (Croydon S)
McCartney, Hugh
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen
MacCormick, lain
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Corbett, Robin
Macfarlane, Neil
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cormack, Patrick
McNamara, Kevin
Rooker, J. W.


Crawford, Douglas
Madden, Max
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cryer, G. R.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S.)
Ryman, John


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Marten, Neil
Sedgemore, B.


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Mayhew, Patrick
Selby, Harry


Doig, Peter
Maynard, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilf)


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mendelson, John
Short, Mrs R. (Wolv NE)


Elliott, Sir William
Miller, Dr M. (E. Kilbride)
Sillars, James


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Redbridge)
Skinner, Dennis


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Stallard, A. W.


Evans, Ioan L. (Aberdare)
Moate, Roger
Stanley, John


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Molloy, William
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Molyneaux, James
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Flannery, Martin
Moore, John (Croydon C.)
Taylor, Teddy (Glasgow, C)


Freud, Clement
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Gould, Bryan
Mudd, David
Thompson, G.


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Nelson, Anthony
Thorne, S. G. (Preston)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Newens, S.
Tierney, Sydney


Henderson, Douglas
Noble, Mike
Tomlinson, J.


Hooley, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael
Tomney, Frank


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Onslow, Cranley
Tuck, Raphael







Wainwright, R. (Colns Valley)
Wigley, Dafydd (Caernarvon)
Woof, Robert


Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Williams, A. L. (Havering)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Watkinson, J.
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)



Welsh, Andrew
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


White, Frank (Bury)
Wise, Mrs. Audrey
Mr. John Ovenden and Mr. Leslie Huckfield.


White, James (Glasgow P)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, if a Bill is presented to this House in the same terms as those of the Channel Tunnel Bill as it was ordered to be considered before Parliament was dissolved, the Bill so presented

shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time, and to have been reported from a Standing Committee to the House, and shall be ordered to be considered accordingly, and the Standing Orders and practice of this House applicable to the Bill shall be deemed to have been complied with.

Orders of the Day — SUGAR SUPPLIES

8.39 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to
move,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/1900/73 and R/1957/74.
The importance of this subject needs no emphasis. I am glad that we have left sufficient time for a debate to which I am sure many hon. Members will wish to contribute. The documents mentioned in the motion are of course memoranda or communications from the Commission, which reflect the Commission's views of some considerable time ago. They do not become regulations until they are approved by the Council of Ministers and the process of discussion by the Council is sure to indicate to the Commission a need for amendments. The House should not have the idea that these drafts are the last word. Indeed these particular documents have already been overtaken by a new draft Instrument R/2717/74 on which an explanatory memorandum has been sent to the Scrutiny Committee. Even on this latest draft I shall myself have important changes to propose. I shall indicate them in my speech and so may other Ministers on another occasion.
These drafts, I repeat, are not decisions but more like a Green Paper as a basis for discussion. And let me remind the House that the Council acts only by unanimity where vital national interests of member countries are concerned. I am glad that the debate tonight will enable me to go to Brussels next week with the views of honourable Members in my mind.
Most of the content of these documents is concerned with the nuts and bolts of Community arrangements for sugar under the Common Agricultural Policy—methods of intervention, management, and so on. Much of this is now somewhat academic because of the revised draft that I have mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be willing to deal with any questions that are raised on these technical matters when he winds up the debate. I think the House will wish me to concentrate on the way in which these documents and the revised draft bear on current anxieties in the country, which I

fully understand, about the supply position next year and on the position of the United Kingdom cane refining industry.
Let me take first the supply situation. Let me start with some background to the supply situation. We have increasing world demand and at the same time much higher costs—of labour, oil, in the cane-producing countries. So we have a world shortage reflected in the unprecedented prices which continue to rise. The United Kingdom as a large deficit area is partcularly vulnerable.
The attraction of high prices in other markets has already led to some diversion of supply from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement countries despite successive increases in price which we have agreed. I do not want to get this out of perspective. Most of the developing countries are fulfilling their contracts in full, and all those who still have sugar to ship in 1974 assured me only a fortnight ago that they would send the full agreed quantities. But some of the Caribbean Commonwealth countries, for reasons which I can fully understand, decided to ship part of their United Kingdom quota to other markets instead. Then the weather has made for a very bad year for beet production and a disappointing crop.
The House will recognise that these factors are almost wholly independent of our membership of the Community. If we were outside the Community we should no doubt be negotiating the next triennium of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The attraction of the high world price to the developing Commonwealth countries with their own severe payments problems would have made that negotiation very difficult for all parties.

Mr. Neil Marten: Surely by now that triennium review would have taken place and they would have known exactly where they stood, whereas nothing has happened so far. Is that not right?

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that events were decided before I had responsibility. He took part in the debates. I am only stating the facts of life, and we now have to consider what is happening in the Community. Severe payments problems which I have stated would have made


the negotiation very difficult for all parties, as I have said.
Long-term commodity arrangements are always notoriously difficult to make at a time of high world prices which may not persist. This is the true source of the present difficulty. so I turn now to Protocol 22.
The position now is that the Community is committed to replace the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement with Community arrangements under Protocol 22. Satisfactory arrangements will be the key factor for our supply situation in 1975 and after. The Commission's proposal is that the Community should allow preferential—that is, levy free—imports of 1·4 million tons from the exporting countries. This is satisfactory and fulfils the pledge we have always required. I am confident that the Council of Ministers will accept this. Then the next step will be to negotiate with the supplying countries and the key points will be the price and duration of the agreement. I have already said that the Government will support a price of not less than £140 a ton f.o.b., which is the amount we are now paying under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. The price is, of course, linked to the duration of the arrangements, because the incentive to the suppliers to accept a reasonable price now is the assurances they obtain of long-term access to the Community market. We intend to press for duration provisions that give the developing countries a firm basis for long-term confidence in their future place in the Community market.
The Commission proposal does not at present, however, provide in a satisfactory way the quota arrangements needed to bring the Protocol 22 sugar to our own refineries, though it gives a financial advantage to specialist refineries, such as our own, by placing a levy on the refining of cane sugar in beet factories. I assure the House that it will be my objective in the Council to secure satisfactory arrangements for reserving cane sugar for our cane refiners. We want sugar to come here.
In this connection perhaps I could say how glad I am that sugar is again being delivered from our largest refinery.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: When the right hon. Gentleman refers to long-term guarantees, which is virtually what he is talking about, what does he mean by long term in this context? Could he define the number of years he has in mind?

Mr. Peart: I hope that we can get indefinite terms, but it may well be that if that is an impossibility, we shall have to negotiate. I want something long term. We had it with the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I cannot be specific. I must allow latitude to myself and my officials who have to undertake the negotiations. We want a long-term arrangement and we have said so. We want the sugar to come here and, as I have said to refinery workers, I shall do my best for the refinery workers. They need have no doubt about that.
Even if the supplying countries send all the 1·4 million tons for which the Community provides access and it all comes here, we still face a short fall up to September 1975 of something like 600,000 tons, partly because of our poor beet crop and partly because we borrowed forward this year to make up the short fall from the Commonwealth this year. So we have a need for additional supplies. This is where we are taking advantage of an important provision of the Community sugar réegime, namely, that subsidies can be granted on imports from the world market when there is a shortage of supply in the Community.
There was a Council decision on this last month, which I shall quote because there has been some misunderstanding:
to adopt the measures necessary to ensure an adequate supply of sugar throughout the Community for the 1974–75 marketing year, at common prices, the costs being financed by the Community under the 1975 FEOGA budgetary provisions. The first stage is for the Council to adopt the appropriate regulation proposed by the Commission for an amount of 200,000 metric tons. The Council will decide on further stages in the light of experience and depending on the effectiveness of this measure.
Those words make clear that the scheme is not, as some people have said, restricted to 200,000 metric tons. The Council decision clearly provides for the full shortfall to be met.
The arrangements for the first 200,000 tons are complex. They were fully set


out in the answer to a Question last week—HANSARD, 8th November, c. 232—and I shall not go over the ground again except to say that my Department is in close touch with the refiners about them. Indeed, the refiners have already taken steps to secure supplies from the world market in the interests of ensuring supplies to consumers. These are exceptional transactions which the Government have agreed to assist with bridging finance by means of temporary advances from public funds. Authority for the expenditure involved will rest upon the Estimates which will be presented in due course, and upon the confirming Appropriation Act. In the meantime, I shall have recourse to the Contingencies Fund.
I come now to the Australian deal, because I know I shall be asked, "What about the Australian position?" Although this does not strictly arise from the documents before the House I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall have your indulgence to deal with it because I know that many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members on both sides are interested in this matter.
A lot of the publicity that has been given to this has presented the subject as if I had a simple choice of buying from Australia so much sugar at such-and-such a price which I unaccountably rejected. But this is not the choice that I faced. To deal with our immediate shortfall, the Australian suppliers in any case at most had only a relatively small amount, about 200,000 tons, available and my latest information is that because of a poor harvest this amount would not have been forthcoming.

Mr. Norman Buchan: rose—

Mr. Peart: Let me continue. My hon. Friend has had his say and has written articles. I am giving my views as one who had talks with the Australians, as one who was a friend of Australia and as one who took the initiative to bring the Australian observers here when we had discussions at the Lancaster conference. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend and others will listen carefully to what I am saying.
As I was saying, the Australian suppliers had a relatively small amount, about 200,000 tons, available and my latest information is that because of a

poor harvest this amount would not have been forthcoming.
But the Australian authorities were not willing to let us have these immediate supplies without a long-term agreement and they made it clear that they wanted such an agreement to be made either directly with the Community or at least to have Community endorsement. They also made it clear that they would want the price in such a long-term agreement to be systematically above the current Community price level. These were conditions which it was not in my power alone to fulfil. But, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on Thursday, it will still be our aim to get all the sugar we can from Australia, whether through the Community or direct, if mutually satisfactory arrangements can be made.

Mr. Douglas Jay: My right hon. Friend has given information about the present state of what the Australians are able to offer, but is he denying what has constantly been reported from any number of sources, namely, that last summer the Australians were willing to offer 200,000 tons this year, but 300,000 tons in the subsequent four years and that had we accepted the offer at that time there would have been no condition—I do not disagree that there is now—that the EEC had to endorse the whole project?

Mr. Peart: There may have been a slight possibility of that some time ago. As I said, I explored this and took the initiative at Lancaster House meetings. I had Australian observers there, and we had discussions and talks. As hon. Members know, I interrupted my election campaign to have talks with the Australian Minister.
All I am saying is that my right hon. Friend must appreciate that what I am saying is fact. The simple fact is that there were difficulties of supply, and there are problems of price. I think I have given a full account of why, in the end, we had to proceed as we did.
I have dealt mainly, as I think the House would wish, with the supply position—

Mr. John Mendelson: Is it correct, as my right hon. Friend for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who is a former


President of the Board of Trade, has just asked, that if my right hon. Friend and the Cabinet had concluded the agreement there and then in the summer the terms would have been as satisfactory as my right hon. Friend has indicated?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give that categorical answer. I was negotiating with the Australians on this. I still want to have Australian sugar. I have said this over and over again. I have given an explanation of the position, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that I do not want to mislead the House. He knows me. I have been in the House a long time and he respects my integrity, as I respect his, so I would ask him to understand what I have done.
I have dealt mainly, as I think the House would wish, with the supply position from overseas, and the documents before the House and the revised draft to which I have referred are also concerned with the internal Community réegime for beet sugar.
I shall deal quickly with the EEC internal réegime, as this is important. The Commission's proposals maintain the quota system for the present réegime for controlling the production of beet sugar within the Community.
At the Council of Ministers on 21st and 22nd October, I secured agreement to a basic quota of 1,040,000 tons, by comparison with our present basic quota of 900,000 tons for the current year. On top of this basic quota we, with other member States, have a maximum quota which includes the basic quota plus 45 per cent.
I hope that the House will accept that, in securing this arrangement in advance of our debate tonight, I acted in the best interests of the country. Our experience this year has certainly demonstrated the importance of having a firm home base for our supplies. I hope that our farmers will now recognise that they have an effective incentive to expand, given that they will soon receive the full EEC price.
I emphasise also that I see no inconsistency between this aim and that of having room for the quantities of Commonwealth cane to which we are committed, namely, 1·4 million tons. I

believe that in the foreseeable future there is plenty of room for both.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before I call the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and his hon. Friends.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: I entirely agree with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the importance of this subject. We might tonight express our gratitude to the Scrutiny Committee for the attention it has given to this subject. Not only has it recommended that the two documents before us should be considered by the whole House, as we are doing this evening, but I believe that it has made similar recommendations on three other occasions.
These two papers raise the whole question of our sugar supplies and how the Community intends to deal with it. At Business Question Time last Thursday my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition indicated to the Leader of the House that the House would want a considerable time to debate these documents on sugar. Although I am glad that the debate has started soon after half-past eight and will go on until half-past eleven, in view of the interest and the number of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in the House tonight I believe it is right to say that three hours may not be enough to deal with this subject and that we may have to return to it, and I suspect we will have to return to it on other occasions.
I would be less than honest if I did not say how complicated this subject is in detail. I am bound to say that I have come fairly fresh to it. The more I go into it, the worse it gets and the more conflicting some of the views expressed seem to be.
For most people in their everyday lives there is no complication about sugar—it is not there. The simple immediate experience and reality is a shortage or normal availability of sugar. It has nothing to do with the recent strike which, happily, has now been settled. The shortage has been going on for some time.


It is largely because of the long duration of the limited supply on the shelves and the failure of the Government to acquire extra supplies on anything like a sufficient scale to bring to an end the shortage that the feeling has persisted—and, indeed, has grown—that the shortage is genuine. I know that the Government have tried by means of soothing words to stem what might be a difficult situation, but they have proved inadequate.
No doubt it is true that in some months supplies to the shops have, as the Government claim, been as high as, and sometimes even higher than, those of last year. However only a massive increase could have ended the shortage experienced by the consumer. In all the circumstances, what else could or should any prudent housewife do but buy a bag of sugar whenever she got the chance?
I feel very sorry for the shopkeepers, who have borne the immediate brunt of consumers' irritation. They have tried a whole range of methods of their own devising for quasi-rationing, to try to be fair, but all are subject to criticism of one kind or another. I am sure that shopkeepers have tried their best in a difficult situation. They are fed up with the shortage, but in my view they have borne it stoically, and, no doubt, would go on doing so if there was a real and reasonable prospect of the shortage coming to an end. Is there such a reasonable prospect? I find it very hard to come to that conclusion on the basis of the evidence available so far or on the basis of what we have heard so far tonight.
That new arrangements have to be made for 1975 and that a new situation had to be prepared for from 1975 onwards has been known for a long time. We are now only a few weeks away from the New Year and apparently—I should like to read very carefully what the Minister said tonight—no firm contracts have been settled yet by the European Community, although I accept the undertaking it has given. So we do not know where our sugar requirements are to come from.
It is true that we have the firm assurance from the Commission, contained in the documents before us tonight, that all the necessary measures will be taken to ensure an adequate supply. But, clearly it would bring comfort and re

assurance to this House, as well as to the industry and the housewife, if we knew exactly how this commitment was to be met.
Last year the House debated this subject and had before it the first of two documents referred to in the motion. The second document, dated 12th July, 1974, updated the first and it acknowledged that
the imbalance between world production and consumption has become more serious".
At the top of page 2 it says:
It is hardly likely that this situation will improve quickly.
In the next paragraph it says:
the growth in the sale for human consumption in the Community, in 1973–74, has been much higher than the usual consumption, whilst at the same time deliveries from certain member countries of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement were about 300,000 tons below the quantities contracted for".
We are, therefore, in a situation of immediate world shortage which has, of course, had its effect on prices. The sugar supply situation was beginning to get tight a year ago. The Russians were in the market then as they are now. The price had to be adjusted and this was done at the Commonwealth sugar producers' conference convened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) last February. He negotiated an increase in price from £61 a ton to £83 a ton, to be paid retrospectively to 1972. That cost the United Kingdom £35 million and was accepted at the time as a fair and reasonable settlement.
The producers in the Caribbean area who had been affected as a result of the sharp rise in the cost of oil and other imports, and who had stopped sending supplies to this country, decided after that conference and the price adjustment that normal shipments of sugar should be resumed. That was the position at the end of February. On 15th March the present Minister confirmed the agreement to which I have referred.

Mr. Buchan: I must admit that it is galling to hear the right hon. Member speaking like this, considering the history of the time and the failure to produce any bankable assurances. Now he comes and preaches to us. Is it not the case that the West Indians approached the Tory Government in the middle of February


to try to get a new deal but that there was no answer to their cri de coeur?

Mr. Pym: A new deal was arranged in February, as I have described, and the price went up from £61 to £83 a ton. As a result of that, shipments which had stopped began to produce supplies again in this country.
What, then, is the position of our suppliers, and what are the prospects? First there is the home-grown beet crop, regrettably, as the Minister said, and perhaps uniquely low, due to weather and disease. The estimate is no more than a yield of 600,000 or 650,000 tons, well down on last year and not much more than half a record year. That is nobody's fault.
I am glad that the Minister has taken steps to increase both the acreage and the profitability of the crop next year. I do not believe that he has yet gone far enough in encouraging the maximum possible acreage that is available to us to be taken up. I can be corrected by the Parliamentary Secretary if I am wrong, but I am told that the increase in take-up of acreage next year is not going ahead as quickly as it should if we are to take advantage of the increases in the quota and acreage and in the profitability which the Minister has encouraged.
It would pay to make the United Kingdom crop highly profitable next year so as to obtain the largest possible home output. The Minister spoke of an incentive to expand. That incentive, if it is thought to be adequate, has not reached enough sugar beet growers to yield the increase in output next year to which the country is undoubtedly capable. I mention that in a spirit of some criticism but more in the spirit of a desire to see the Minister use his resources to get a greater take-up of home-grown acreage.
So far as supply is concerned, in 1974–75 home-grown sugar will account for no more than about 25 per cent. of our requirements, instead of 35 per cent. or even more. By far the most important source of supply is the countries which were parties to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. As the House well knows, and the right hon. Gentleman readily recognises, the previous Conservative Government were highly concerned to

ensure a continuing supply from those countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Oh, yes, we were highly concerned to do that, and we had the full support of the Labour Party. We went to great lengths to secure this position in the protocol to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—No. 22 of the Act of Accession—and a definite proposal in relation to the 1·4 million tons is referred to in the first document before us.
I know from the Press this morning—and the right hon. Gentleman confirmed it this evening—that he is confident that the Community will honour that undertaking. I have here a piece from the Daily Telegraph and from other papers indicating that he is confident that the Community will fulfil that undertaking which my right hon. Friend negotiated and the House endorsed.
I want to press the right hon. Gentleman on the expected total quantity, because doubts have been expressed in many quarters whether the full 1·4 million tons of raw cane can now actually be obtained. Some estimates indicate that no more than 1 million or 1·1 million tons will be forthcoming. I confess that I have no means of my own of testing the accuracy of these estimates, but as there is a shortfall in CSA deliveries this year, and as next year the world shortage is likely to persist and probably increase, and the world price is so high, what is the basis for supposing that the full 1·4 million tons of raw cane will be imported into the Community and delivered to the United Kingdom in circumstances in which, I understand, no firm contracts have been signed? This was not absolutely clear from the Minister's speech and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about it.

Mr. Mendelson: It is a travesty of the truth, in the absence of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), for the right hon. Gentleman to have the face to tell us about a firm agreement. He must know that when the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham, who then spoke in our name, announced at five o'clock in the morning that agreement had been reached, the French Foreign Minister at five minutes past five said that no agreement had been reached. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that that was what the


United Kingdom wanted. We on our side are not committed. That is the truth, and the right hon. Gentleman should admit it.

Mr. Pym: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) should not get so excited. The 1·4 million tons was negotiated and accepted—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, it was accepted by the members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and is referred to in the document that is before the House. The hon. Gentleman should obtain a copy and look at paragraph 5. That is a Community document. We negotiated that arrangement, it was accepted and the Minister said that it would be fulfilled.
There is then the Australian situation. Australia has usually provided this country with about 300,000 tons of sugar, and the assurance we obtained on the 1·4 million tons did not relate to the supplies from Australia. This came out clearly in the debate last October when my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham said:
We recognised from the outset that it would be impossible to negotiate long-term arrangements for Australia after the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement expired. The Labour Government came to exactly the same conclusion when they applied for membership of the Community. The only difference between us is that—to judge by the speech given by the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord George-Brown, in 1967—it appeared at that time that they "—
that is, the Labour Government—
envisaged an abrupt termination of Australia's exports while we believe they should be phased out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1973; Vol. 862, c. 1290–91.]
However, the position tonight seems slightly confusing. The right hon. Gentleman said that only 200,000 tons might be available, but then I thought he said that it was not available and that if it were available it would be at a high price. That seems to be in contrast with what he said was the Prime Minister's aim of trying to get sugar from Australia to the maximum degree he could.

Mr. Peart: There is no conflict. There are circumstances which show that they had difficulties, and I took the initiative. If at some later period we can get Australian sugar, we shall welcome it.

Mr. Pym: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that point, but it seems

to me that the trade with Australia may come to the abrupt end—I hope that that will not happen—which was referred to by my right hon. Friend last year when referring to the previous Labour Government's negotiations in 1967. At the very worst, it must be better to come to some new arrangement with Australia for next year, and longer, than to arrive at the present time, in mid-November, with nothing settled.
I appreciate the Community's responsibilities and the problem of price, but what is needed is sugar. What steps did the Minister of Agriculture take with the Council of Ministers during the summer to get an agreement negotiated? What weight did he throw into the task of making rapid progress on contracts for future supply? Clearly the House recognises the grave situation confronting our cane refineries. They face—or they fear they face—a serious depletion of supplies after February next.
It is extremely difficult to establish the precise sources and quantity of supplies after February. Raw cane for 1975 should be loaded on to ships fairly soon, but there is no sign of where that cane is to come from. If I am wrong about this and the contracts have been settled and raw cane is coming, no doubt the Minister will say so in his reply.

Mr. Marten: My right hon. Friend said earlier that he thought the Commonwealth producers might not reach the 1·4 million tons and that there might be a small shortfall. Is it the Conservative Party's case that we would recommend going to Australia to obtain 350,000 tons a year for five years to cover that shortfall? Is that the case we are making?

Mr. Pym: We are in the position that we were in a year ago that the contract with Australia could not probably be a permanent feature for all time of our sugar supply, but if it were to be reduced in any way it ought to be phased out and not come to an abrupt end. The risk we face at present is that it may come to an abrupt end. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"] That is the position. The 1·4 million tons, as I have made clear, did not include any deal with Australia. That was outwith Australia. It seemed to us that a phasing out of our supplies from Australia would be a likely outcome, but the longer that takes the


better. That is in the OFFICIAL REPORT for hon. Members to see, and I quoted it.
There is now a world shortage and a shortage in the United Kingdom. I criticise what has happened in the summer months from the point of view both of the Government and of the Community in not getting everything they could from Australia and every other country to fulfil our supplies.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question that his hon. Friend asked? Is it the policy of the Conservative Party now to seek a new agreement for four or five years with Australia for some comparable figure of sugar imports?

Mr. Pym: It is for the Commission and the European Community to negotiate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Yes, it is. That is the position. What I have been saying is, what has the right hon. Gentleman been doing to use his weight and his muscle to get the Commission to do that during the summer months? I was referring, on my hon. Friend's question, to the way in which we saw it developing a year ago—that is to say, a phased-out agreement.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) did not negotiate in the Community for Australia. He also knows that, since a new Government have been in power, we have continually raised this; it will be raised again, probably tonight, by the Foreign Secretary. We have acted. Hon. Members opposite would have dillydallied.

Mr. Pym: No, I have been perfectly frank. I quoted from the debate last year from the then Minister of Agriculture precisely what the position was. I said that the 1·4 million tons did not include anything from the Australian suppliers which we then visualised being phased out. I cannot help thinking that, if the Government had been more active, more agitative, with the Commission during the summer, the present uncertainty which is hanging over the industry and which brings anxiety to so many people could have been avoided.
I turn now to the European Community, from which we have contracted

to buy direct 150,000 tons of white sugar in 1974 and 1975, and to the way in which the Community intends to deal with the imports of sugar. I understand that the Commission, instead of making outright purchases of sugar, will invite traders to tender for subsidies from the FEOGA funds. Obviously, those who put in for the lowest level of subsidy will be awarded the contracts and the authority to import. Under these arrangements, the traders who import sugar will be authorised to export to the world market, free of export tax, an equivalent quantity from the 1975–76 beet crop.
This scheme may lessen the amount of subsidy which would ultimately have to be granted by the Commission, but it seems to me to assume that adequate tonnage of sugar will be available from next season's crop, which obviously has not yet been planted. Clearly, therefore, there are risks for any traders taking part and in any case a fairly massive financial operation is involved. One of the companies in the sugar industry in this country has said that the immediate cash requirement for purchase of the first 200,000 tons could, at £500 per ton, be about £100 million. Longer-term finance would be needed until eventually our export profit was realised a year ahead.
The Minister referred tonight to the availability of finance to assist in this operation and I shall be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will give us more details and particulars of that. The scale of money involved is clearly considerable. I should like to know how much money the Government will make available and upon what terms.
The present uncertainty and escalation of price of sugar adds to the risk and the cost of this arrangement. Since these arrangements were announced, the end price has gone up to more than £600 now and I see that there are forecasts that it could go even higher yet.
There can be no denying that this enormous price increase in sugar has a direct bearing on the 1·4 million tons that we wish to continue to refine. Can the Community obtain that quantity at a price we can reasonably afford? Always before we paid less for CSA supplies than it cost us to produce sugar at home. The CSA countries got a higher price than they otherwise would and long-term stability with it. Now the Government


and the Community will have to decide how far to pay over the odds in order to meet the demands of the developing countries for higher price.
In view of the price and the fact that we and other countries in the Community can produce sugar for less cost, it is hardly surprising that the second document enlarges the quota for beet production. In the case of the United Kingdom it is highly unlikely, and perhaps even impossible, that the full A and B quota, which is slightly more than 1½ million tons, can be taken up either by producers or refiners. The British Sugar 'Corporation's capacity for slicing is little more than 1·2 million tons, and even if there were to be a huge increase in acreage, the sugar from it could not be available to the consumer until 1975–76.
Europe now recognises that for the foreseeable future in order to meet the European deficit situation it will have to be a net importer of sugar. That entails the import of cane sugar and therefore a cane refining industry. If that industry is to be viable in the future, the Community must recognise that some form of long-term arrangement is necessary, as the Minister said tonight.
For some time it has been accepted on all sides that some form of reorganisation of the sugar industry in the United Kingdom is necessary. Can the Government say where this matter now stands? Everyone agrees on the need for a fundamental reorganisation, as is indicated by the signatories to the Memorandum of Intent signed last August, the priority being to ensure long-term stability of the cane refining industry in the United Kingdom.
While on the subject of cane, I want also to remind the House of the importance of refining margins. Continental beet refiners, refining cane in their closed season, have a distinct competitive advantage over the specialist port refiners in the United Kingdom. This was recognised by the Community when my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham was involved in negotiations.
Unless special terms are negotiated for United Kingdom refiners, some of the 1·4 million tons might be diverted elsewhere, and as we know many jobs are at stake—[Interruption] We negotiated a higher

margin for United Kingdom refiners and that is something the Government must keep in mind—[Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members saying that I am wriggling, because I am not. Separate and higher margins for refining were negotiated by the Conservative Government.
To summarise the supply situation for next year, as far as we know we can expect 600,000 to 650,000 tons. From the Commonwealth we simply have an assurance of 1·4 million tons, hopefully, but some say it will be 1 million tons and some estimates put it at even less. The Minister was not forthcoming about actual hard contracts that have been signed with former members of the CSA. There is then the completely unknown situation in Australia. Basically there seems to be nothing arranged at the moment and at the very best, if everything went well, the Community might be able to get 200,000 tons, but it does not sound very certain from what the Minister said. We then have 150,000 tons direct from the Community.
Our requirement in the United Kingdom is 2·8 million tons. The gap is alarming. The Minister's figure was 600,000 tons. That could well be made a higher figure and some people make it a higher figure. I am doubtful whether the House will be satisfied that we have taken all possible steps to reduce the gap. Further, our strategic stock has been eaten into and may have vanished altogether. The Minister did not say anything about that and I think we need to know. We may have 1,000 years' supply of salt under our feet, but I doubt whether we have one month's supply of sugar in reserve.

Mr. Robin Corbett: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the supply of sugar, will he tell the House whether he favours the introduction of sugar rationing?

Mr. Pym: I am coming to that now. Given the world supply situation—I hope that the Minister will not be upset by this—I find the Government's handling of the matter throughout the summer and since at best imprudent and based on wishful thinking and at worst the prelude to rationing. It is difficult to know where to take one's starting point in this story, but the House may well recall—

Mr. Eric Ogden: Let us start after the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) left.

Mr. Pym: The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) can make his point wherever he likes, but his right hon. Friend who is now Secretary of State for Trade said:
Against that, it is the judgment of virtually all those who are experienced in the sugar trade that long before this decade is out, and probably well within the next two years, supply will outstrip demand, with devastating effects on price levels. I remind the House in that context that the price of sugar was as low as £15 a ton as recently as 1967."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 1280.]
I do not think that was a prescient comment from the right hon. Gentleman who is now a member of the Cabinet.
In March the Minister confirmed the new Commonwealth Sugar Agreement price which was negotiated in February by the then Conservative Government. As a result, supplies from the Caribbean countries started to flow in again, although it was obvious that the future position would require the most careful watching in the light of the uncertain world situation. I do not think that the Minister was alert enough to react to the developing and deteriorating situation with the required resolution and urgency.
In April the retail trade warned the Minister of shortages and of the problems of supply for its customers. It warned of the possibility of rationing. I understand that there was no response that month or the next month and that the response did not come until June. In May it was estimated that the importation of cane sugar this year would be approximately 20 per cent. short of expectations. We were told that authorisation had been given for 100,000 tons to be taken from the strategic stock on the basis that it would be replenished later this year or next year. Clearly, there is now no hope of that 100,000 tons being replenished.
At the same time representations were coming from some Commonwealth countries that a further price increase would be necessary. Guyana made clear its dissatisfaction early in May. We are not aware of what action the Minister took on that matter until September when he visited Guyana and negotiated a deal.

We do not know what happened between May and September, but by July industrial buyers were facing the prospect, if not the actuality, of cuts of 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. Retail customers were facing increasing problems as cane refining had to be cut back because of shortfalls in the arrival of cane.
In the same month the world price moved up to £280, which was then a record. The United States was beginning to be affected. That, of course, added more pressure to the market. Five countries were unable to meet their supply quotas to the United States and some Commonwealth countries stepped into that market.
The second document that we are discussing recognises the new and changed situation. The Minister gave a Written Answer which said:
I am taking steps to make additional sugar available to overcome these temporary difficulties …
He referred to total supplies to the country as a whole over the year. He said:
total supplies to the country as a whole over the year will be maintained at the normal level …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July 1974; Vol. 877, c. 573.]
That, of course, would become inadequate in the light of shortages that had developed, and the Minister did not seem to be aware of what was going to develop.
On 3rd August we read reports that the Minister had already given assurances that the immediate supply position would improved by the middle of the month. Apparently extra supplies had been secured by the Government from Commonwealth producers and these were about to arrive in the shops. On 6th August the Daily Telegraph told us:
The sugar shortage will ease week by week and should be 'significantly better' by next month, the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday.
[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like it. But we must face the fact that this is a very complicated matter and that the housewives are short of sugar. I am sure that the Leader of the House will provide extra time if we need to have a longer debate on the matter.
On 13th August there were reports that the Government had decided the previous


day to release sugar from strategic reserves and that the Ministry of Agriculture had written to retailers saying that they might
place orders now for delivery next week of the additional sugar being released by the Government.
Next day we read:
The Government yesterday tried to dampen down further alarm about the supply and price of sugar…
Hon. Gentlemen may not like to hear about that, but that is what happened.
A Press report stated:
Reports that only 30,000 tons of sugar had been released in hundredweight bags from government stockpiles have prompted concern because the trade expected about 100,000 tons to be forthcoming.
All of this arose because of a lack of comprehension of the situation and a lack of determination to deal with it. Prices kept going up and up, and no deal was completed by the right hon. Gentleman. I agree that he tried to make a deal, but he did not succeed, nor did he go at the matter hard enough.
I would like to know whether we have got the sugar that the Government have talked about. What is to happen after February? Are we to have rationing? Are the Government satisfied that their supplies are adequate? Have they put arrangements in hand sufficiently well to ensure that there will not be rationing?
I was asked earlier whether I thought there ought to be rationing. If the supplies, for which the Government are responsible, are not adequate, there will have to be rationing. It is up to the Government to make sure that there will not be rationing. We have not yet had sufficient information about what the future position will be. I hope that the Government can satisfy the House on this matter tonight, but this is a subject to which we shall have to return.
I apologise if I have taken too long in putting forward my views. I would not have been so long had I not been interrupted. What I have been saying shows both the complexity of the situation and the embarrassment being felt by right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side. We are not yet satisfied that the arrangements made by the Government are adequate to ensure supplies in 1975 and beyond.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move, to leave out, in line 1, from 'Commission' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
Document No. R/1900/73, but declines to approve Commission Document R/1957/74 as it makes no provision either for continuing imports, at fair and stable prices, of at least 1·4 million tons of cane sugar from Commonwealth countries, or for the continued existence of and employment in the port sugar refining industry in the United Kingdom, or for securing long term supplies of domestically refined cane sugar at a fair price to consumer and producer".
The calling of the back benchers' amendment tonight is important. On 23rd July my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) drew Mr. Speaker's attention to the importance of "Take Note" motions and we on this side of the House are grateful that Mr. Speaker has seen the need for some development on this point.
My interest in this matter started in relation to Third World issues. I still have that concern, however, but I shall not speak about it this evening because my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Healey (Mr. Hooley) hopes to speak on this point.
Since my initial interest in this matter
have become the Member for Newham, South. The Silvertown refinery is in my area. The refinery is now back at work distributing sugar, although for a week it did not do so. I made clear to my hon. Friend that I am in no way taking on board the views of Tate and Lyle. The refinery must exist regardless of the question of its ownership, and that question is still to be resolved. If Tate and Lyle had shouted earlier than last week, we might have done it, because had Tate and Lyle shouted on 12th May 1971, when the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) concluded his aura à coeur arrangement, we might not be in the situation we are in now. Also, if the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) had not been so effective in his whipping on 27th June 1972, and if we had won the amendment to write the 1·4 million tons into the European Communities Act, we would not be in this position today.
Therefore, his attacks on my right hon. Friend are completely unfounded, because it was the hand which the then Conservative Government left with my right hon.


Friend that has bound him hand and foot in the negotiations which he has been forced to have in the last few months.

Mr. Pym: The fact of the matter is that the 1·4 million tons has been agreed, and it is in the documents which are being discussed by the House tonight.

Mr. Spearing: I certainly agree that, in the sense that it is in the first document, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the first document has been superseded, and that 1·4 million tons was not in the Treaty of Accession. Nowhere was it written down as a firm, binding and bankable assurance. Every time we have tried to bank those cheques they have bounced, and the right hon. Gentleman is partly responsible for that.

Mr. Pym: How, then, does the hon. Gentleman think that his right hon. Friend on the Front Bench accepts that that 1·4 million tons is going to be produced, which is what he said tonight?

Mr. Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman must not presume that. We are hoping that that will be so. My right hon. Friend the Minister and his hon. Friend who is to wind up the debate have their own reasons for doing that. It is our intention on this side to press them to give those reasons, because we believe that this is necessary to protect, not only the interests of people in the industry, but also the interests of the British housewife.
The one year and eleven months since accession to the Community have produced no movement towards these bankable assurances. Even if my right hon. Friend is successful in the next few weeks, as we all hope that he will be, even then it will have shown that the "having at heart" or the desire of the community to help in this matter is perhaps a little tardy and delayed.
I have referred to the fact that my right hon. Friend had a difficult hand to play and, if he had not already bargained out of the Australian deal, my hon. Friend might have been more successful in that respect. But I am not going to follow up on that matter for the moment. He was not successful, and in the Summer Adjournment debate I raised the matter and asked for a statement. We did not

get it from the Government, and that is one of the reasons why I took certain steps when we came back, because 3,000 people in my constituency are liable to be out of work if the Silvertown refinery does not operate on imported cane sugar. Whether we get that or not lies with the EEC, and it is that on which the last Government sold out on 27th June 1972 and formerly in the Treaty of Accession.
I think everyone agrees that the Lardinois proposals, which my hon. Friends may refer to, are only a short-term measure which will last for one year. The deals which my right hon. Friend has made with Guyana and other Commonwealth countries run only until the end of this year. The hopes that have been raised in the Press are perhaps not as high as some people would like. On Friday my right hon. Friend managed to assure the workers at the Silvertown refinery that he will do his best, and that the Government have it at heart, to obtain this 1·4 million tons. I do not think that the sincerity of my right hon. Friend has been called in doubt. It is only that the tools that he has available are virtually non-existent. That is why we want to press him, because he must press—and so must his hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, who I believe is going to Brussels tomorrow—that the view of the House of Commons—and the British people is that this undertaking must be honoured.
The effect of the amendment is to decline to approve Document R 1957/74 because it
makes no provision either for continuing imports, at fair and stable prices, of at least 1·4 million tons of cane sugar from Commonwealth countries, or for the continued existence of and employment in the port sugar refining industry in the United Kingdom, or for securing long term supplies of domestically refined cane sugar at a fair price to consumer and producer.
This wording is unexceptionable in its specific terms, and I hope that the Government will accept it in the spirit in which it is moved. If they want strength from which to bargain in the next few weeks, they can go to Brussels saying that the House of Commons does not believe that this regulation is good enough and therefore has not even "noted" it. It would strengthen the Government's hand and help them to


achieve something which I think the whole House wants them to achieve. It will be for the Government to say why they think that the regulation achieves their objectives, which are also the objectives of the whole House.
I wish to concentrate on Document R /1957/74 because Document R/1900/ 73 is now out-dated. It was a preview, a kind of forward look from nearly eighteen months ago, and it has been overtaken by events.
The memorandum which accompanies Document R/1957/74 from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, makes it quite clear that the document does not deal with the external sugar trade. I does not attempt to deal with the Protocol 22 countries or with the import of cane sugar. Therefore, by first definition in that document it cannot deal with the figure of 1·4 million tons. So I believe that the amendment is proved on that factor alone.
But the document deals in great detail with the internal production of EEC sugar, and it is that to which I now turn. We all know that sugar beet-growing in Europe is increasing. I will not detain the House by going into the complicated matter of the A, B. and C quotas. They were spelled out in a Written Answer to me in HANSARD on 6th November and they are most complex. But, of course, the quotas have been increasing, and I draw the attention of the House to the Answer.
The amount of sugar grown in the EEC in the last few years has varied between 7 million and 10 million tons a year. I believe that the highest figure was achieved in 1973–74, when 9·5 million tons were grown. In the current year, 1974–75, the total will be slightly less.
The Written Answer I had, which I assume follows on the document before us, shows that the quotas have been rapidly increasing. The basic maximum quota for 1973–74, that is, the A and B quotas combined, was 10 million tons. But in the year after next, namely, the first post-Lardinois year, 1975–76, the quota rises to 13¼ million tons. That is an increase of over 30 per cent. It might be said that the B quota does not have to be grown. However, a lot of the B quota has been grown. As the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire knows, there is a

C quota, which is that it is not a quota at all but that the sky's the limit if it can be refined and sold. In other words, officially the quotas have been expanded and the off-quota amount for a deficit is there for anybody, if they can grow and refine it.
Therefore, Document R/ 1957/74, if my Written Answer is correct, shows that the European beet quota is going up 31 per cent. over a two-year period. That is the import of that Written Answer, and I take it that that is the import of the document, because I assume that the information was taken from the document. Page 4 of the document shows the figures I have quoted. It says further that the probable total production within the maximum quotas is 9·7 million tons and that the estimated consumption is 10 million tons. The deficit is shown as 0·3 million tons.
There is no room for a figure of 1·4 million tons there. Far from providing the opportunity for the 1·4 million tons that we all want to see, the document and my Written Answer suggest the opposite, namely, that it is being squeezed out.
What are the increases in these quotas? The Netherlands increase is 58 per cent. The Belgian increase is 55 per cent. The French increase from beet is 40 per cent. The French are by far the biggest growers of European sugar beet. Their quota from 1973–74 was 2,611,000. It is to go up in 1975–76 to 3,669,000, an increase of 1 million tons in French sugar beet quota alone. Of course, they get their 400,000 tons of French-grown cane in under their internal agreements, from part of metropolitan France. They have done all right for their Caribbean territories. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham and his Friends did not do the same for ours.
Not only does this document which we are asked to approve not provide room. It suggests that cane is going to be shoved out. Indeed. United Kingdom beet—the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire mentioned this—is to go up 67 per cent. We know that the maximum quota is well above what the sugar beet factories can actually process. No doubt there will be pressure for them to be expanded. I believe that the British Sugar Corporation has a £25 million expansion scheme for its sugar beet factories. No doubt, the farmers will be pressing to take up


all that 1·5 million in two or three years' time.
I think that my case is made, unless the Minister can prove me wrong. I emphasise that that is the import of what we have before us in respect of Document 1957/74 and the Written Answers to me in cols. 162–3 of HANSARD of 6th November
There is a third document which is not before the House, Document 2717/74. It was issued as late as 21st October 1974. I have made inquiries about this matter, and I understand from the Clerk of the Scrutiny Committee that this document has not even gone to it. So it is no use the hon. Gentleman say that we cannot discuss it tonight because the Scrutiny Committee has not sent it to us. That may be true, but is it good enough?

Mr. John Davies: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that the Scrutiny Committee does not exist at the moment.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was aware of that, and I apologise for the mistake. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that, despite this queue and this important document, which I shall mention in a moment, we have no Scrutiny Committee. It is a salutary thought, and if hon. Members are wavering on this matter tonight perhaps they will bear it in mind.
This document, which the Scrutiny Committee has not seen, goes into further detail about the quotas for the coming year. Indeed—surprise, surprise—it mentions 1·4 million tons, but it is not in front of the House tonight. I ask my hon. Friend—perhaps he could give us a reply now, or certainly when he winds up the debate—whether Draft Regulation 2717 is to be discussed at the Foreign Secretary's meeting tomorrow or at the meeting of agricultural Ministers on 18th and 19th November? I can hardly suppose that it is not, because it goes even further into the thinking of the Commission. It is a draft regulation for the Council of Ministers, and one would imagine that it would almost certainly be discussed. If that is the case, why was it not put down for a "take note" debate and why are we not formally discussing it tonight?
I think that the Government have an obligation to explain why this document is not in front of us. The document goes into some detail about how the quantities from the developing countries can be brought in. It refers to an IPT scheme, which I believe is called imported preferential quantities. Article 31 states:
In a period of 12 months the sum of the preferential quantities may not exceed 1,400,000 metric tons of white sugar.
I repeat that it says "may not exceed"; it does not say that that shall be the minimum; it does not say 1·5 million or 1·6 million, but "not exceed".
Secondly, Article 32 refers to the guaranteed price.
Price is, of course, going to be very important. Article 32 says:
The guaranteed prices shall be fixed taking into account the intervention price for white sugar applicable in the Community. …
Thus, in a document that is not in front of the House and that surely must be discussed in Brussels in the next few weeks there is some provision, albeit in outline, for 1·4 million metric tons.
If that is so and there is to be an import of 1·4 million tons and if there are to be these increased sugar beet acreages, or quotas at least, that we have read about, how will it all balance? There is only one answer. It is that in future there will be a considerable export of sugar from the Common Market to world markets, as there was some years ago. We may get in some 1·4 million tons—though that has yet to be decided, as it is only a draft regulation—but it will be at the expense of putting a lot of sugar out of the back door on to the world market, perhaps ruining the market for Third World producers who are non-associables as well. That is a possible solution, although perhaps not a very moral one.
It behoves the Government to tell us tonight whether that is to be. Let not my hon. Friends be deceived—that issue is not before us tonight. We are dealing with Document R / 1957/ 74 and, as I have said, there is nothing in it about the 1·4 million tons and nothing that will repudiate my amendment.
Finally, I had a letter today from the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office commenting


on some points I made to him on this matter. He said:
There may need to be some contraction in refining capacity but I know that Fred Peart is anxious to keep this to the absolute minimum and that he is looking at ways of dealing with this problem.
So, even the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office agrees that there may be some need for contraction in the beet refining industry.
To sum up, I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us something more about that. If I may return to where I started, these matters not only affect overseas suppliers and consumers and housewives in this country but they affect the whole beet refining industry.
For these reasons my hon. Friends and I have put down the amendment. I appeal to the Government to accept it, because, unless they can show to the contrary, the contents of Document R/1957/74 give us no hope as it stands.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. John Davies: The debate this evening illustrates very clearly one of the great problems in dealing with these instruments coming from the Community, with which the former Scrutiny Committee has been faced. As the Minister has told us, the two instruments which we are debating this evening are both superseded. According to what the Minister said this evening, the instrument to which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred-2717/ 74—is itself already subject to amendment and change. It is, therefore, exceedingly hard to accept in any reasonable terms an amendment posed in respect of a document which the Minister now categorically tells us is no longer valid.
It also illustrates the difficulties in dealing with the instruments with which we are faced. It may be curious to many Members here that agriculture Ministers, of all Ministers, should be particularly given to what are called fast-moving documents. But they are. These fast-moving documents are ones which the Scrutiny Committee, even when it exists, is at sore pains to find means of seeing in time to take them in, to debate them, to discuss them adequately, and then to make a recommendation to the House which is timely enough for the House to have a debate before the Ministers are obliged to deal with these matters in the Council.
This is a very real problem particularly affecting the agricultural area in the Community. It is notable that the Community, which is not always noted for its speed in movement, should in this area be fast moving. It may be surprising that agriculture Ministers, who have not, at least latterly, been particularly rapid in movements to secure the better interests of British farmers, can move with such astonishing rapidity when it comes to dealing with agricultural regulations.
The truth is that the Scrutiny Committee is suffering from this curious contrast of dilatoriness as between London and Brussels in so far as here a number of good and willing Members are waiting for the chance to get to grips with a vast mass of paper but are not given the opportunity of doing so to help the House. I take this opportunity—perhaps I abuse the opportunity, but I feel justified in doing so—of bringing to the attention of the House the fact that we are building up day by day a continuing backlog of work which inevitably will cause the House difficulty in future. There will be problems with vitally important issues which should be debated on the Floor of the House. No time will be available because we are being held up.
To turn to the instruments, outdated as they are, any Minister of Agriculture has an extremely difficult task in dealing with sugar, and I fully acknowledge that He has somehow to reconcile a surprising number of different and at times contradictory interests. He has, first and foremost, somehow to meet the supplies—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Sugar may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Coleman.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Davies: One of the Minister's primary problems is to ensure the supply of the market. The evidence that this is a difficult task is before our eyes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Pym) so eloquently pointed out. It is difficult to order the sequence of priorities, but the Minister's


second problem is to be concerned with the interests of the developing countries which are members of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. Second only to the assurance of supply of the market, he has a major responsibility in that respect.
My own experience in dealing with these matters, at second hand perhaps, was that that great responsibility was always deeply acknowledged both by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and subsequently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). It is totally unjust to accuse them of having in any way failed to seek to deliver exactly what they undertook. I had the pleasure of attending not the first but the second of the Lancaster House conferences, when the Caribbean and other countries which were members of the CSA were fully assured that every effort was being deployed by the Government of which I was a member to ensure that that outlet was secured. I cannot accept that there is any fairness in the charges which have been made across the Floor of the House this evening.
The third responsibility of the Minister is to ensure the continuance of the employment involved in our major cane sugar refining industry. He has a big task in that respect which it is sometimes hard to reconcile with his other responsibilities. It is clear that in these days, with the shadow of great doubts about employment hanging over parts of the country—my mind goes particularly to Merseyside—there must be a responsibility incumbent upon the Minister to ensure that he does all he can to preserve employment.
The Minister has a fourth responsibility, which is to try to look after the best interests of the British farmers. The potential of our beet planting and reaping industry has been too little referred to in the debate. It is a vital matter. Our farming industry in many respects is limping in serious circumstances. Here is an area in which there is a potential for increase. The Minister surely must give attention to securing its progress.

Mr. Peart: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that sugar beet has a place, with cane sugar. There should be no conflict, and the interests of sugar

workers in both sections of the industry should be reconciled. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I said in my speech, I secured at the Council of Ministers an agreement to a basic quota of 1,040,000 tons by comparison with our basic quota of 900,000 tons for the current year. Then we have another quota. Apart from that, I recognise that there have been crop failures and other matters that have affected the industry. I am anxious that we shall succeed there.

Mr. Davies: I am glad the Minister said that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire sounded the same word of caution about the extent of the inducement to beet farmers to fulfil the kind of quota provisions which the Minister now claims he has made. This is an area of no mean importance.
In a world where all the ominous signs are of inadequate food supplies to meet the needs of a growing world population, we are wise to look to the Common Market to give us the assurances which are implicit in the common agricultural policy. That policy provides for a preferential supply within the markets of the Community. In conditions of serious food shortages ahead, we are wise to take advantage of that policy.
It is open to the Minister to try to pick and choose among the advantages he may see, but he must be careful. He cannot pick and choose to a point at which his whole adherence to the principles of the CAP is cast in doubt, because if he does he will forfeit many of the rights to which he is entitled within the framework of that policy, rights which are greatly valued.
I commend the Minister of Agriculture on what he achieved in October in the Council of Ministers. The improvement in beet quotas is a commendable achievement, and for our own sakes it is something for which we shall thank him in future. I do not hesitate to say that. The right hon. Gentleman's intervention a moment ago was not necessary to draw forth my approval, because, as I have said, I approve of his action. But there is still much work to be done.
The regulation of the Community market is an abiding problem which has always caused great difficulty and long negotiations within the Common Market. It is quite a success that the present situation has been achieved.
I do not share the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, South or his view about the quotas in relation to total requirements in the Common Market. I do not believe that this has in any sense within a Community context the intention of foreclosing outlets for Commonwealth sugar or for cane sugar imports, or for procuring by the back door an exit for equivalent quantities. That is not my experience in dealing with the Community in these matters.

Mr. Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the late 1960s about 1 million tons surplus beet sugar was put on the world market by the EEC? With a 30 per cent. increase in beet acreage quotas, is not that situation possible even in view of the 1·4 million tons figure?

Mr. Davies: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but that situation obtained in totally different conditions from those which exist today. They have no relevance to the present question. How could one say of February this year, when my right hon. Friend was seeking to renegotiate part of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and to obtain a price improvement for Commonwealth suppliers of up to £83, that that period had anything in common with the present state of the market? At that time we were agonised with a market that surprised us by rising to a figure of £200 a ton. We are now seeing reports of sugar at £500 a ton or more. To imagine that the circumstances in February are comparable to those which obtain today is nonsense, but to imagine that they compare with the late 1960s is even more nonsensical.

Mr. Hooson: Did not a similar problem face this country in terms of beef? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will cast his mind back three years. Had he then said that there could not be a surplus of beef in this country or in the Common Market, the House would have accepted it. He is making the same argument about sugar, and we should be sceptical about it to say the least.

Mr. Davies: I am not so sure. If quotas were the same as production, there would be justice in that argument, but quotas are not the same as production. Quotas are facilities within which goods

can be produced. That is a very different issue. The provision of these additional quotas is no more than a facility allowing the Community to move its production forward in a period of acute shortage. The "C" quota is specifically oriented to that end and is only available for access to Community markets in the events of their running short of sugar for their own supply. There again, these quotas do not represent the threat which it has been suggested tonight they might.
The Minister has told us that the 200,000 tons which M. Lardinois has put forward as the first step which the Commission might take to try to secure our very worrying supply situation during the current sugar yield is one which he expects to be able then to complete, with further deals to be undertaken subsequently. There is one considerable anxiety about this and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to it. I mean the curious expression that this arrangement will be undertaken "within the limits of the budget". I hope that this does not imply that there is a ceiling within the framework of the budget which, at a given moment, might be quoted as something which would preclude the Community from carrying out its undertaking to us.
The most important issue remains to be concluded—the question of the 1·4 million tons and what will follow the Commonwealth Sugar Ageement. This is to us all the most critical question of the lot. It is, however, an issue which is in one way quite segregated, within Community terms at least, from the handling of the normal sugar system in the Market. The framework of discussion within Protocol 22 was always, and was recognised during the course of the negotiation as being, a separate issue which would cover sugar. My clear recollection of many discussions that I had during the negotiations last year on this subject is that there was always strong pressure not to conclude a sugar arrangement to the exclusion of other equally substantial issues in relation to the Protocol 22 countries.
Therefore, one of the big factors for delaying—I agree with Labour Members, delay there has been—was simply because there was a desire not to seek to conclude one section of the Protocol 22 negotiations to the exclusion of the rest.


Moreover, there was an understandable concern in the Community that one should not seek again to conclude arrangements in relation to the 1·4 million tons either in anticipation of any decision which was taken about the eventual adhesion of the Community to the International Sugar Agreement on the one side or to the finalisation of the internal sugar réegime within the Community on the other.
So there were perfectly sustainable reasons, which were nothing to do with any deep-laid plan to upset the principles which my right hon. and learned Friend for Hexham agreed. There were some perfectly sustainable arguments about why there was a desire not to deal with one issue at one time. The truth is that for all of us this issue looms by far the largest and, as has been said, it embraces a series of different and interrelated questions. [Interruption.]
There is the big question—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member really has a question to put about the point I have just made, I shall be delighted to answer him. Otherwise I find it difficult to hear what he is constantly murmuring.

Mr. William Molloy: What the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) did was go to Brussels and let down the British Commonwealth of nations on issues which should have been discussed and decided in this British House of Commons. That is the difference between the right hon. Gentleman and me.

Mr. Davies: That is an interesting statement which had no question attached to it whatsoever. The hon. Gentleman has posed no question but simply made an interesting statement, as he generally does, and generally from a sitting position.
The issues around which the negotiation of this critical question will dwell are the following. Obviously the quantity is very important, but equally the price is absolutely critical. The question of security is important and perhaps has not had enough discussion. We have seen the current agreement fall short in terms of its supply by about 335,000 tons for reasons we can understand. None the less, when it comes to ensuring the supply to the market, it is a considerable shortfall.
If we are dealing with the Community in a market of approximately 10 million tons of sugar, the precarious element which may be introduced in so big a quantity as 1·4 million tons is an important factor. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you were sitting in Brussels and organising these matters, no doubt efficiently, you could not take the risk of not having 1·4 million tons at the critical moment when you needed it.
The security aspect is therefore fundamental. The wise Community providers for that market will have to make some kind of provision to ensure that they will not find themselves suddenly let down for these supplies, or we shall all be let down.

Mr. Frank Hooley: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, given a definite assured long-term agreement as they had under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, the Commonwealth producers would fail totally to supply 1·4 million tons?

Mr. Davies: In the past year, for reasons which we understand, they failed to do so. In any wise provision there must be effectual security, otherwise the market will not be provided with sugar.
There is the question of destination. In the discussions I had during the time in which I had to deal with these matters there was never serious question but that these supplies when they were agreed would be for our port refining industry. I would regard it as something of a delusion to imagine that the Community, knowing our problems of employment which obtain not only on Merseyside but in Greenock and Silvertown, is working out some Machiavellian scheme in order to deprive our port refining industry of sugar. The Minister must persist, in the light of tonight's debate, in seeking to ensure that we get the full 1·4 million tons and that the price is reasonable—I do not mean a price which harks back to the old Commonwealth Sugar Agreement price. It must be a price negotiated with the peak of the market in mind, otherwise the housewife in Britain will have to pay a frightening amount for her sugar.
The Minister must press for a high degree of security in the contract which is signed, and he will have no difficulty in securing that the destination will be


our port refineries. The right hon. Gentleman started slowly, he has done one or two things which seem to me to be

right and I now only advocate strongly that he should see the whole thing through to the end.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) has learned much since he first came to the House as a North-West Member. He has the enviable ability of appearing to be the most reasonable of men—perhaps he is—and of saying reasonable things such as he said in the last sentences with which most hon. Members would agree. Of course, the whole House wants that 1·4 million tons and a proper price for the consumers and producers. In the North-West we are concerned not only with the question of the cane refiners but with every industry that uses the products from the refineries, and with security of employment. Yet the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to forget that he had the responsibility not only of expressing hopes that the EEC would fulfil our requirements, but of getting acceptance of our hopes in writing, of trying harder to get acceptance in writing.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) asked when all this began. My right hon. Friends' responsibility began when they first took office. They were given a very bad hand and I appreciate very much the way they have played that very bad hand so well. Certainly on Merseyside we have a great deal of confidence in my right hon. Friend's desire to get the best possible bargain.
I am in a difficulty because the Government motion asks the House to take note of Commission documents, not to approve them. If I take note of them it does not mean I like them, simply that I am noting that they are there. My hon. Friends' amendment says that they will not even take note of them and will positively decline to approve them. I should have thought that in any negotiation my right hon Friends on the Front Bench should have the support of the House, and they would be stronger in negotiations if the House accepts the amendment rather than the Government's own motion. The Minister might give some guidance on this when he winds up the debate tonight.
Sugar is an emotive word these days. It is as explosive as Cambrian water ever was. It is an emotive issue. Partly

for historical reasons, partly because of the patterns of our trade with the Commonwealth we have enjoyed ample supplies of cheap sugar. It would be more accurate to say that we were used to such supplies, but not any more. Times have changed whether it be in world markets or world economies, since last October. This applies not only to sugar but to oil and every primary commodity like copper, cocoa and wheat. Nothing is quite the same as it was a year ago and the new wealth of the world is in primary products. For reasons of security of supply of sugar, for reasons of balance of payments and our own agricultural interests we should cultivate and even expand production of home-produced beet sugar.
Cane sugar is no less important generally, and in my part of the world it is far more important. There is rivalry between cane and beet but there is also an interdependence because cane sugar refiners have been kept going at times by the raw sugar of the beet refineries. The situation can operate the other way round. Cane and beet are rivals but they need each other's co-operation.
The Commonwealth should be reminded that trade and aid is a two-way trade and it is not helpful to break agreements, for whatever reason. For reasons of trade, investment and regional employment security of supplies is a primary interest. The need to keep our cane sugar refineries in full production backed up by new investment is as important as all the other considerations which have been put forward.
Cane sugar is of particular importance to Liverpool and Merseyside and has been for well over 300 years. The sugar trade was one of the reasons for the growth of the ports of the Mersey. This goes back to that infamous trade of manufactured cotton goods out to West Africa, of slaves from West Africa to the West Indies and of the products of the West Indies, whether cotton, molasses, or raw sugar back to the Mersey. On Merseyside now we have two refineries—Tate & Lyle at Love Lane, Liverpool and the Sankey Sugar Refinery at Warrington. They provide investment, employment and high quality sugar products, and these we want to maintain. In the last


five years all Liverpool Members of Parliament have been involved, by invitation of the workers and employers, in discussing the future of Tate & Lyle in Liverpool. The refinery is located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry). He has led in the consultation which has taken place at every level. I have never known such co-operation between workers, management, and local authority members and local Members of Parliament. I put on record my appreciation of the support we have had from Labour Ministers from the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Trade, and the Department of Industry. They know the needs of Merseyside and have acted to meet those needs. My regard for the management of Tate & Lyle is not quite so clear. I have a high regard for the company's products and for the expertise with which Tate & Lyle guard their interests. The prime interest of Tate & Lyle is Tate & Lyle. Most of the time the interests of the workers and management coincide but this is not always so. Tate & Lyle put forward some truth within their advertisements for Mr. Cube. The company put forward the truth so far as they see it, but they do not always put forward the whole truth. Mr. Cube's sponsors are formidable operators. They want us to think of Mr. Cube as a simple and strong crusader. But he is not the only member of his family. He has a cousin, Mademoiselle Cubette. There is certainly a Graf von Cube active in Germany. There may well be a Signor Cubellino active in Italy. The company does not always emphasise that part of their international relationships. They want to be both British and European.
Mr. Cube is not as independent as he would have us believe. In their latest, current advertisements, Mr. Cube seems to be wearing a rather tatty cardigan. He is certainly worried. He is not so independent now as he claimed to be five or six years ago. The Government obtain his sources of supply. His standards are regulated by Government as are his costs, profits and processes. Mr. Cube is rather more a bowler-hatted civil servant than an independent crusader.
Almost all Britain's sugar supplies are provided by three companies—namely,

the British Sugar Corporation, which is mainly in beet, supported by Government investment. The corporation is part public and part private. Manbre & Garton Ltd. is a private company which controls a smaller share of the market. It deals mainly in cane sugar. Then there is Tate and Lyle. It is a private company which controls the remainder of the market. All three undertakings are very much subject to Government authority and control. Sometimes they want help and sometimes they do not. There are continuing arguments going on about the reorganisation of British cane sugar refining. Whether we are with the Commonwealth or inside or outside the EEC there will still be a need for a total reorganisation of the whole of the British sugar-refining industry. We cannot possibly have a situation which allows three companies to control what is virtually a monopoly and which allows all the blame to attach to the Government when supplies are not secure. The Government have no real authority to impose terms. It is a situation which allows each undertaking to play for its own end of the market. I have heard workers in Silvertown saying that the "villains of the piece" are the beet sugar workers. That is nonsense.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): The hon. Gentleman is making a point of criticising our refiners. Of course, that is not abnormal from his side of the House. Is he suggesting that there is something inefficient about our refiners? I claim that they are probably the most efficient in the world. The hon. Gentleman says that they must be reorganised. Why?

Mr. Ogden: The British Sugar Corporation, with major investments, is expanding at the same time as there is real danger of cane sugar refineries being closed. I said nothing about the efficiency of Tate & Lyle, except to praise the quality of the products, and then I said, that the refiners are not truly independent, although they say they are.

Mr. Hastings: That is not their fault.

Mr. Ogden: I am not suggesting that it is. I am merely stating a fact. They are not as independent as they have claimed. Their sources of supply, prices and so on are controlled by the Government. The


Government are blamed when there are shortages. Why should they not say "We will take into public ownership and control the whole of the sugar refining interests of this country"? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should ask any of my hon. Friends who, tonight at least, are on my right. No one has accused me in the past 10 years of being a Marxist or militant. Some of my hon. Friends would think better of me if I were.
The logic of the situation is that there is almost a monopoly source of a vital commodity—sugar, yet the Government are blamed for shortage of supplies. The only future for security of supply for consumer and security for the workers, whether cane or sugar beet workers, the only hope for investment, is to take the industry into public ownership as soon as possible.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Gentleman said that there were only three firms in the industry, and that these were not enough to secure competition. He is now advocating reducing the industry to one monopoly firm. That will reduce competition, lower the standard of service and efficiency, and reduce the opportunities for workers. What is the hon. Gentleman talking about?

Mr. Ogden: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had listened, and that he would not put words into my mouth. I was stating the fact that there are three main companies which claim to be independent but which are in fact interdependent, and that there is very little independence for any of them because the Government control three-quarters of their operations. In those circumstances, why pretend that there is independence? Why should not the Government take the full responsibility for the whole industry, for security of supply, for control of prices for housewife or industry, and for employment and security of workers. Britain needs a British National Sugar Corporation and the sooner the better

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten: I shall not go into the rather curious arguments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) about nationalising

the sugar industry. But I congratulate the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on having his amendment selected. It is important that we should be able to make such amendments in debates on the Common Market regulations. We should take it one stage further sometimes and try to make amendments to the regulations or draft directives. I do not see why we should not do that.
As there is not much time for debate left, and as I imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will call the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) next, because he resigned on this very issue, I shall be brief.
I wish to come to the defence of the Commonwealth on the question of its supply of sugar to this country. I have given my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) notice of the fact that I would refer to the exchanges on sugar at Question Time last Thursday, when he used these words:
I have a good deal of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State…who has seen the Commonwealth producers rat on their obligations to supply us at reasonable prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 7th November 1974; vol. 880, c. 1230.]
There is a need to defend the Commonwealth suppliers against that sort of accusation. I imagine that my hon. Friend spoke out of ignorance, or perhaps he had been paying too much attention to the European Movement propaganda. I have spoken to my hon. Friend, and I think that he would now agree that perhaps he went a little too far.
Australia has fulfilled its quota, and has offered us more; Australia has not ratted. Australia is a very reliable, efficient supplier, and it has supplied its full quota in spite of the terrible floods in Queensland.

Mr. Peart: I agree about Australia. It has always been a very good supplier, even in difficult conditions.

Mr. Marten: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that.
Mauritius, another Commonwealth country, fulfilled its quota, and is offering us more over and above the quota. The same goes for Swaziland, which wants to give us more next year, and Fiji. They have not ratted on their quota.
Therefore, what I think and hope the hon. Gentleman meant was that the West Indies had failed exactly to fulfil their quota. But I do not think that criticism of the West Indies for that is entirely justified.
They have suffered from inflation and the oil crisis. They had two bad seasons with their crops, and the cost of their imports rose. They are not rich countries and they were running short of foreign exchange. So they appealed to Britain for help, which was forthcoming, albeit a little late. In the interim they had to turn to the world market. They sold part of their sugar on the world market, purely to get urgently needed foreign exchange for their own domestic reasons. I do not and will not blame the West Indies for the shortfall. I certainly do not consider that the Commonwealth ratted on the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. That needs repeating.
In the past we would have got together rather earlier over the whole question of the Agreement and sorted out a price. Had we been able and free to do that, this situation may not have arisen. It is essential in all these developing Commonwealth agreements to recall why we operate them. It is for trade and aid. It is a form of aid which is trade. We are worried about the small sugar farmer in Fiji with perhaps 10 acres, as well as about our own housewives and families. The Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was a stable reassurance to many families in those countries. It was also an assurance to our housewives.
I find the delay in reaching agreement on this 1·4 million tons curious. I see no satisfactory reason why the agreement could not have been reached earlier. I would like the Minister to deal with this in his reply. There is a deep suspicion among Members in all parts of the House that this was due to the French beet lobby trying to increase its share of the European market and trying to put out of production part of our refineries so that we would not be able to use so much cane sugar.
Turning to the Lardinois proposals, there must be a slight suspicion that they were suddenly brought forward to forestall the Australian deal for 200,000 tons and 350,000 tons for five years. I ask the Minister: what guarantees are there

that this 200,000 tons, or a proportion of it, will arrive in this country? Secondly, what guarantee have we got that this will be renewed? There is a guarantee that it will be reviewed, but none that it will be renewed.
If it is renewed, then for how long will it be renewed and for how much? All of these matters, so important to us, are vague. Have the Germans agreed to pay their share of the subsidy for more than 200,000 tons? I have heard doubts expressed in Europe about this. It has been said that the Germans have refused to pay any more subsidy. In that case the agreement would break down.
I refer to the Prime Minister's answer to me at Question Time last Thursday when I questioned him about the sugar and inflation. He ended by saying:
we have every intention of getting all the sugar that we can from Australia, either through Community arrangements or direct."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1974: Vol. 880. c. 1240.]
That is the sort of talk I like to hear. It is the right approach, because it is the duty of the Government to look after British families, as well as those overseas for whom we had a responsibility in the past. I urge the Government no longer to go to Brussels and play these rather silly lower sixth form-type politics in the Community, wasting further time. Send out a senior Minister to get that sugar, get it in the bag. That is the right line for any British Government to take, before American and Japan wade in and get it. Having got that deal we could rely upon the Australians but, regrettably, it would require the approval of the EEC as the Australians might fear that the EEC would eventually stop the deal in some way.
If there is a shortage of sugar—and I say "if"—I shall blame it on our entry into the Common Market and on our failure to get more than that undertaking of aura à coeur. I shall blame the Minister of Agriculture for not being tough enough in Brussels. But in the end I shall blame the Common Market itself for failing to get on with that agreement for 1·4 million tons because people in Brussels have been procrastinating, as they always do. That will probably be the final reason why we shall not get the sugar.
It is curious to look back on the debates in 1971 and 1972, when we were told that we should not debate the Common Market on the question of butter. I always agreed with that, because the debate had nothing to do with butter but with whether or not we should go federal. We were concerned with the political debate. It would be curious if it were said that that debate should not be about butter but it turned out to be about sugar, because sugar will illustrate the extent to which we have surrendered our sovereignty to the Common Market.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I call the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan).

Hon. Members: "Hear, hear".

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I have not always heard cheers when I have been called to speak in a debate, and I am glad to hear them today.
I have waited a long time to take part in this debate and I shall be as brief as I can. I was interested in the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). The right hon. Gentleman almost casually put two key questions out of the way. The question of the Scrutiny Committee underlines the necessity for the debate, and if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food does not agree with the amendment I think that the House should take a decision on it. The fact that the Scrutiny Committee does not exist is not a criticism of the Government, but it shows some of the difficulties that we have come up against because of the nature of the Bill that was passed by this House.
The second matter that we have to consider is the failure of the Caribbean countries to deliver their full quota, because there are good reasons for that, too, and they are not unconnected with the legislation that we passed two years ago.
The right hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point which brings me to my main theme in discussing these draft regulations. That was the point about the Lardinois proposals having to be within the limits of the EEC budget. Even the

right hon. Gentleman questioned the possible consequences of this.
I was sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture did not give way and allow me to put a fairly simple question to him. Any disagreement that we may have over this decision is not because I question my right hon. Friend's motivation or his desire to do his best for this country. I know my right hon. Friend far too well for that. I believe that the judgment was wrong, not that it was a bigoted judgment.

Mr. Peart: I turned round on one occasion, but it was another hon. Member who put a question to me.

Mr. Buchan: That makes me more confused than ever. However, I believe that many people have been confused about this matter of sugar.
A matter which engaged our attention this summer, which is related to these regulations and was referred to by my right hon. Friend, was the possibility of the Queensland deal. My right hon. Friend said that Australia was offering only 200,000 tons. That is precisely the figure which is now coming forward in the Lardinois proposals, and which we are told is very good. We cannot shove one aside and welcome the other in quantitative terms.
One reason for the failure to clinch the Australian tonnage was that at one point in the discussions the Australians firmed up and said "We want EEC guarantees for it, before we agree." Those guarantees were not forthcoming. We know why the Australians wanted those guarantees. They were afraid that if there was a change in the world market price—and incidentally the right hon. Member for Knutsford underestimates the speed of variation in the world market price—and the world market price of sugar came down, there would be levies on the price of sugar. The correct reaction would have been for us to say to the Australians "We will guarantee it. No matter what the EEC decides, we will stick to the terms of the agreement." That was one option.
For this reason, the Australian deal was pre-empted by another deal. It was perhaps the reason for the Lardinois deal, to pre-empt the Australian deal. I remember when my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore)


warned the House that we should not underestimate the power of the European farming lobby and the desire to keep out sugar cane. That was exemplified this summer. There may have been a connection between the two; I put it no stronger.
I should like to refer to the analysis of the Lardinois offer by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), whose speech was as irresponsible as it was long-winded. The Lardinois offer bears examination. It speaks in terms of 200,000 tons. Some of us say that is not enough. What further guarantee is there? This is where the right hon. Gentleman's point has some relevance. My right hon. Friend says it is only a start, and some of us challenge that statement; some of us believe that it is not only a start but that it is also the end. But if it goes further than that to 600,000 tons—and I believe we require nearer 1 million tons—where is the money coming from? The Germans say they will not increase the budget. What happens if it goes over 200,000 tons? What happens, without going beyond 200,000 tons, when the world market price of sugar shoots up?
The right hon. Member for Knutsford dealt with that point only casually. It is a really crucial point. There has been some disagreement about the translation, and doubt has been expressed about whether the 200,000 tons is to be continued. I am told that I am translating it wrongly, but the translation says that the Community will then look to see how it can increase the continuing amount. That agreement on the budget casts grave doubts on whether the amount will be increased.

Mr. John Davies: I have no doubt whatever that the proposal referred to a first step of 200,000 tons. My anxiety, as is the hon. Gentleman's, is about what happens in paying for the subsequent steps when they arise.

Mr. Buchan: That brings us back to "Go"—" and do not collect the 200,000 tons ". It was based on finance which was not to be extended. Does anyone believe that the Germans will spend up to their full proportion of £200 million or £250 million in supplying us with sugar when the whole concentration of the regulations is to expand beet production? We do not believe that.
Next is the effect this has on the world market. The world market represents a tiny amount of sugar. It acts as a small reservoir of sugar for people who want a bit extra. Like angels dancing on the point of a needle, small though it is, a hellish number of speculators can dance on the sugar market. As soon as there is a requirement in the world market the price shoots up. The smallness of the market emphasises not its unimportance but its importance. The first pressure that goes on the market causes the price to shoot up. That is the gap that has to be bridged.
The Common Market recognised that and put in another string. To close that gap a little the Common Market said that one must be able to buy forward sugar. The refineries are not sure whether that will work. I understand that the Government will assist and that the major refineries will do their best to cope with the problem, but there is no guarantee that they can cope with it. There is no guarantee that this 200,000 tons of sugar will come here. The French, Germans and Italians can provide for forward buying, but we still do not know whether we can. That is another problem involved in the Lardonois agreement. This deal which pre-empted the Australian deal does not yet guarantee a single ton of sugar.
Further, as the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement runs out at the end of this year, and the only sugar on this year's allocation may come in in the first two months of next year, there is no guarantee of sugar beyond 1st January other than our own sugar beet. Some of us say that there is an alternative—not to allow ourselves to be dominated by the EEC.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) succeeded in making his monstrously long speech without once accepting an atom of responsibility. But we all remember what happened with aura à coeur and the translations we had of that. We were told that the excess of the 1.4 million tons was bankable. The cheques are still bouncing, and they have never yet been banked.
I do not primarily blame my right hon. Friend. I agree with those who said that he had been given a rotten hand. The Conservatives presented him with that


rotten hand and disagree with his decision. I understand the difficulties which my right hon. Friend faces. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire made no attempt at apology or understanding. Indeed, he suggested that all the troubles started in February this year. That is nonsense.
The reason why the right hon. Member for Knutsford was able to talk about the failure of my right hon. Friend to provide was not in connection with the passing of the European Communities Act. The Opposition are saying that we still have no guarantee that Britain and the EEC will bank the Lancaster House assurance. We still have no assurance that at the end of this year our cane sugar will be provided for Britain and the EEC countries. The Conservatives looked for other arguments. Yes, there is the price factor. Who can blame the West Indian countries for being worried about that?
There is also the fact that they have no guarantee. What they require is continuity and security and reasonable prices, and that is what we should give them. We should re-open negotiations with Australia and guarantee the Australians a price, regardless of what the Community says.
I have good reason for saying that this is an extremely important aspect. We have had one Parliamentary scrutiny of these regulations, carried out by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities, Sub-Committee D, under the chairmanship of my noble Friend, Lord Champion. He asked one of the civil servants who gave evidence on 20th August:
In the light of the world situation in sugar supplies, is there anything you would wish to add to your explanatory memorandum of the proposals now before the Sub-Committee?
The civil servant replied:
…we shall have an assured need for 1.4 million tons of sugar from the developing Commonwealth, and in addition to that, as he "—
my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture—
said in his statement, we shall need an assured supply on a long term basis from Australia. So, if anything, the supply situation emphasises the need to secure satisfactory arrangements for Commonwealth sugar in the forthcoming negotiations.

Later, the civil servant, in reply to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood said:
Our policy, as ministers have stated, rests on three rather different assumptions in three respects. First, and I think this can be regarded as common ground, there is the access for the 1·4 million tons. Secondly, there is assured access for Australian sugar on a long term basis. These two forms of access are essential to maintaining the domestic supplies in this country in the short term.
The third objective was expansion of our own home-grown sugar beet production.
By and large, my case rests here. I understand the difficulties faced by my right hon. Friend. He should support the amendment. We should immediately say to the Commonwealth countries that we want to enter into negotiations with them and that we understand their need for continuity and security. Our need is for supplies and the common ground is probably price. It is unthinkable, for example, that we can drop below the £140 a ton than British Guyana and other Caribbean countries got in recent years. This should be the starting point of our negotiations. Secondly, we cannot accept the EEC's view that the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement price must not be higher than the European threshold price. That is surely a non-starter.
How many years should agreement with the Commonwealth sugar-producing countries run? There is a seven-year cycle of production requiring a reasonable basis for security I suggest that a five-year rolling programme would be necessary—in other words, a rolling programme from year to year, with continuity assured for five years so that at no point could there be anything less than a five-year cut-off. Given that security and continuity, I believe that the West Indians and other Commonwealth countries will begin to be able to come to an agreement with us which will be fair to both sides and which will guarantee us our supplies.
I hope that my right hon. Friends will consider what I have said. I had hoped that the Government would have said that they would accept the amendment. I have been 10 years in the House—

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend will wait till the end of the debate, because in the winding up speech we shall indicate our intentions.

Mr. Buchan: I look on that as almost a marriage proposal. I accept on the spot. I am glad to receive the indication—[AN HON. MEMBER: Consummation.] It is a consummation most devoutly to be wished. I hope that the spirit is carried out to the letter, whether by the Whip, by the Under-Secretary, the Minister of State or anyone else. The right thing for the Government to do is to accept the amendment. It can only strengthen the Minister in the discussions this week. On that very hopeful note—for once in my life—I sit down.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) mentioned monopoly and throughout this interesting debate every speech seems to have been a mixture of chance and "community chest", each ending up with 1·4 million tons.
Without doubt the problem lies in the fact, first, that we as a nation eat too much sugar and, secondly, we have been able to eat too much sugar because it has been too cheap and there has been every incentive to ruin our teeth and spoil our health by eating too much sugar. What must be realised is that the days of cheap food are over. In fact, the days of cheap food, just as the days of surplus food, are over. What we have come to now are the days of self-sufficiency in food.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that he feels sorry for grocers. I submit it is very difficult for the right hon. Member to feel sorry for grocers in a constituency which adjoins mine which abounds with sugar beet farmers. I feel very sorry for sugar beet farmers who are now to be encouraged to expand; to do exactly what the pig farmers and the beef farmers were encouraged to do in the last few years.
I make one simple plea to the Secretary of State, namely, that if our sugar beet farmers are to be encouraged to grow more beet they be given an absolutely copper-bottomed guarantee. Farmers have always, been prepared to accept the vagaries of the weather. If the Government are to ask them to grow more sugar the farmers must have a chance to make money by so doing. They do not want the type of promise that the pig farmers and the beef farmers have had and have learned to rue.
I was interested to read in the Economist—[Interruption.]—I will make this my last word, not because I have no more to say and not because of the interference from the. other side, but simply to allow the Front Bench speakers to wind up—
The EEC subsidy scheme for sugar for Britain has been made the whipping boy for the unalterable fact that there is no cheap Commonwealth cane sugar to be bought.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: The debate has been interesting, and it has shown the complexity which the sugar problem poses to the House. We have had only a three-hour debate on this subject, and it is obvious that we shall need to return to it. There are many hon. Members in all parties who have not had an opportunity to take part in the debate on this major issue.
The subject-matter of the debate falls into two major parts, the short-term and the long-term problem. The short-term problem involves filling the gap between the present and September 1975. There are various methods of attaining this end and hon. Members in all parts of the House have put forward their ideas on how this could be done.
I do not think there is any conflict between what the Minister of Agriculture has proposed and what has been said by some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) in respect of the Australian and EEC positions. It is quite clear that in terms of what has been proposed by the Community to solve the problem of the shortfall mainly in this country, and to a more limited extent in Italy, there is a gap of 600,000 to 700,000 tons—perhaps more, but at least not much more than that. This gap will be filled by the Community and it will pay a subsidy on imported sugar from third countries at whatever price that may be to bring it to EEC price levels.
The system by which this will be attained is complicated and I shall not weary the House with the details, except to say that importers have to take a view on what the forward market will be to recoup some of the high prices they will have to pay for their imports now by making exports without tax from Quota "C" sugar from the 1975–76 crop. Therefore to that extent, their tenders for


subsidy from FEOGA funds will be reduced.
As I understand the situation, there is no limit on the amount of sugar which the Council of Ministers has agreed will be needed to fill the gap. The first tranche or section is 200,000 tons, and will be subsidised out of FEOGA funds. I understand that after the 200,000 tons has been imported, the Council of Ministers will review the position to see whether it is the best way of paying the subsidy to bring in sugar to make up the gap.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) raised an interesting point about payments out of existing budget of FEOGA funds in respect of this import. At the moment the figure needed is 200,000 tons, but it will rise beyond that. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the fund would be available in that event and, as I understand the position, the Council of Ministers, including the German Ministers, agreed in principle that the gap between now and September 1975 should be made up from FEOGA funds. I understand that there is no doubt about that, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm the position.
I further understand that the budget estimates which are now being put before the European Parliament this week, include an element in which there is sufficient room within the existing draft budget so that the estimated cost rise of the subsidy system can be met.

Mr. Spearing: On this very important point, I have in my hand the Council's statement dated 22nd October, headed "Luxembourg" and it reads:
The first stage is for the Council to adopt the appropriate Regulation proposed by the Commission for an amount of 200,000 metric tons. The Council will decide on further stages in the light of experience and depending on the effectiveness of this measure.
It does not suggest that, although the amount may be guaranteed, the method of finance after the 200,000 tons is in question.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is right. I have debated this with Commissioner Lardinois. I have heard the Chairman of the Council of Ministers talk about it in the Parliament. As I

understand it, the only point at issue is whether the proposal from the Commission on the way of financing the subsidy is the best in all the circumstances. They are going to review that method after the first 200,000 tons has been imported into the Community to make up the shortfall. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to confirm this fact.
So the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) need have no anxieties about that. I have none—[Interruption.] No, I have no anxieties. When they say, as they have, that they will fill the gap and find a method of subsidising it, I believe that this will be done and the funds will be available.
In the sugar situation, there has always been some difficulty—rivalry, if one likes—between cane and beet in both the long term and the short term. I agree that in this country we need both the imports of cane and as much beet as we can grow. In the longer term also there is no doubt that we need both sources of supply. There has been a lot of talk about the 1·4 million tons. This of course does not include the Australian 200,000 or 300,000 tons of sugar which they are prepared to supply.
All through my time in the European Parliament, ever since we joined the Community, in repeated debates, repeated assurances have been given by the Council of Ministers and its chairmen of several nationalities, from the Ministers and from the Commission, that the 1·4 million tons of cane sugar proposed under Protocol 22 was accepted. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) opened the debate on 24th October, 1973, he repeated that the previous month the Council of Ministers had accepted the 1·4 millions tons as that which it was necessary to import under Protocol 22. It ill becomes hon. Members opposite to query the good faith of these Ministers of other countries, when they say that they will do this, and to say that they do not mean it. They have said it and I have no doubt that they will. Therefore, the 1·4 million tons will be negotiated and will come into the Community.
But there are two points on which I must criticise the Minister. These negotiations about the 1·4 million tons were started by my right hon. Friend the


Member for Grantham way back in July 1973. They were ongoing negotiations—

Mr. Peart: Why did he not complete them?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The Minister knows the reason full well: because the Commonwealth countries were not able to complete the negotiations themselves at that time, and the new sugar réegime—this document here—had not been completed and agreed.
I cannot understand why the Minister did not press his colleagues in June and July of this year not only to start the negotiations but to get them going. I have tried to find out from Brussels today what was the state of negotiations with the Commonwealth countries. But I have had no success: I understand that all the officials were in Luxembourg attending some other ministerial meeting, at which the Foreign Secretary was present.
As I understand it these negotiations can be completed by the Commission within the available time, and the real question is that concerning price. I am sure that the House will feel that there is no doubt about the good faith of the Commission or of the Council of Ministers that the 1·4 million tons will be accepted. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) says that French beet growers will not like it. They did not like it. But their Minister accepted the commitment in the Council of Ministers and did not dissent from this arrangement in 1973 and 1974. The report can confirm this.

Mr. Hastings: I do not want to impugn anybody's good faith, but where will the 1·4 million tons come from, and what will be the price of the subsidy, since we shall have to pay 13 per cent. of it in any case?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: There is no question of subsidy on the 1·4 million tons. The subsidy is for the shortfall of the 1974–75 crop to be made up between now and September 1975. The 1·4 million tons is the ongoing commitment to enter into the Community.
My hon. Friend asked where will it come from. It will come from our traditional suppliers, but if they are unable or unprepared to provide it at a price

which is reasonable not only to them but to us, then the fall-back must be from the other existing suppliers in the world. I would say to my hon. Friend—I hope that this will be confirmed in the reply on behalf of the Government—that as long as the price can be agreed at a reasonable level, there is no doubt that Commonwealth countries, particularly the West Indies, will wish to supply on an ongoing basis the 1·4 million tons to this country.
The proposal from the Commission to the Council provides:
that the preferential import system shall apply from 1st January, 1975, and that it shall be valid for the same period as that of the new Convention, namely five years.
Therefore the point made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) is covered.
It is a question of a five-year forward-looking contract as far as the import into the Community is concerned. I hope that this point will be confirmed in the reply.
I turn now to the Australian position. As many hon. Members have said there was an availability of a certain amount of sugar from Australia in the summer of this year. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister has not given an explanation why he was not prepared to close that deal at that time. I hope that we shall be informed whether, if there is difficulty in getting the 1·4 million tons for 1975–76 onwards and there is a possibility of Trinidad putting 13,000 tons on the open market for auction in the next week or so—which is not a good sign—there will be no opposition from the Commission or the Council of Ministers to whatever gap or shortfall there is, bearing in mind that there will be a five-year basis available, being filled by Australian sugar. I have no doubt that this will be so.
I turn now to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I do not think that the amendment is all that relevant because as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) the documents to which it relates are out of date, and have been superseded. The new document completely succeeds that for 1973 which we are meant to be dealing with. The 1974 document is a useful one, with which to open the debate,


but it is purely a memorandum and does not contain any proposals.
Therefore whether or not the amendment is irrelevant to the issues at stake, I agree that it has been necessary to have this debate which has highlighted the fact that the Minister should have moved earlier.
I do not believe that our beet growers have sufficient security in order to be able to fulfil the 1·5 million tons figure. They want an adequate price; I do not believe that they have yet got it. There is now little time for beet growers to make a choice between sowing beet this winter, or some type of cereal. I believe therefore that the Minister must hurry and get that one sorted out. He has been extremely dilatory on this whole question, certainly where the 1·4 million tons and the negotiations with the Council of Ministers were concerned. He has not done enough, yet for the beet growers of this country who need an assurance and need it quickly if they are to plan properly for 1975.

11.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): All hon. Members will agree that we have had a useful debate. Certainly there will be other debates on this issue, so hon. Members will understand if I concentrate my reply on those questions which pertain to the documents and which will be central to the discussions which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be having this week and which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be having next week.
I should like quickly to dispose of some of the more outrageous criticisms by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). He criticised us about the basic price of sugar beet. Surely he realises that the price of beet when we came to power was £7 a ton. We raised it to £10 a ton. We are not saying that this is high enough for the 1975 crop, but it ill becomes the right hon. Gentleman to criticise us for not giving the beet producers a fair return.

Mr. Pym: I am glad that the Government jumped the whole transitional period for sugar beet. I said that more needed

to be done to encourage take up of the increased quota, which I am glad the Minister has negotiated.

Mr. Strang: The right hon. Gentleman also sought to take the credit for his right hon. Friend for increasing the CSA price from £61 to £80. Had the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends increased that price earlier we would not have had the diversion of shipments under the CSA which took place in the earlier part of the year. So, far from claiming credit for increasing that price, they deserve criticism for the delay they incurred in raising it so as to secure our quotas under the CSA.
I come now to the central weakness of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It has been picked up by my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman's Government did not secure Community agreement to the access of 1·4 million tons from the developing Commonwealth, and that is what the argument is about. That is what my hon. Friend's amendment is about. That is what we are going to negotiate, but we do not have agreement from the Council of Ministers or the Community about 1·4 million tons.
Let me come briefly to the question raised on the Australian deal. The Australians made it clear throughout that their preference was for a deal with the Community as such. They insisted on Community endorsement of any agreement with the United Kingdom as soon as it became clear, at the Agricultural Council meeting of 17th-19th September, that it might not be possible to secure the agreement of the Council to the exemption of Australian sugar from the levy. The central point—and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) did not make this clear—is that the Community has accepted a commitment to meet our needs for the whole of the 1974–75 crop year. The 200,000 tons refers solely to the mechanism. I can assure the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) that there is no limit to the money which will be spent on this arrangement. The financial claims for the subsidisation of the sugar imports on FEOGA will be equal to any other claim.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: rose—

Mr. Strang: I recognise the deep concern which my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has for the future livelihoods of the sugar refinery workers in his constituency. They are lucky to have acquired my hon. Friend as their champion on these issue. I accept the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden).
The central issue is the 1·4 million tons. We must first secure Community endorsement for that figure. Second, we must secure an acceptable duration for that agreement. That means a deal which stretches very far into the future and certainly well beyond the referendum. Third, we must ensure that the sugar is refined in the British cane sugar refining industry. Fourth—this is perhaps the most important part of the whole deal—we must see that the price which the Commission and the Council of Ministers offer to the developing Commonwealth is reasonable and reflects to some extent the current world market situation.
I think that my hon. Friends will accept that with those four points I have covered the substance of the amendment. I am therefore able to inform my hon. Friends that the Government accept the amendment. There should have been no doubt about it. The Government have made their position clear throughout on these matters.
There are two central facets of the issue that we must recognise. First, the situation which the Government inherited would have been much better if the Conservative Government had secured adequate arrangements for the future supply of sugar when they negotiated entry into the Common Market. That was the time to secure the 1·4 million tons. That was the time to secure adequate agreements and arrangements for the future of the refining industry. The second central issue that we must face is that the whole sugar situation has been stood on its head in the last year in the sense that in the short term we are not doing developing countries a favour by buying their sugar at the sort of price that they get at present under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. In one year the price of sugar has gone up from £100 to £500 a

ton on the world market. That is the central issue.

Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1900/73, but declines to approve Commission Document R/1957/74 as it makes no provision either for continuing imports, at fair and stable prices, of at least 1·4 million tons of cane sugar from Commonwealth countries, or for the continued existence of and employment in the port sugar refining industry in the United Kingdom, or for securing long term supplies of domestically refined cane sugar at a fair price to consumer and producer.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — LUTON (PUBLIC TRANSPORT)

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: There is one matter on which virtually everyone in Luton will agree. Trade unions, company managements, old folks' clubs, townswomen's guilds, churches—I have had letters from all of them in the past few days—not to mention thousands of individual men, women and children, all agree that the bus service in Luton is awful. It is at the point of near breakdown. That phrase "near breakdown" is not mine, although I totally agree with it. It was used officially in describing at a recent meeting between the chairman of the county council's public transport advisory group and the general manager of the United Counties Omnibus Company.
I have no doubt that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of the Environment are close to becoming immune to complaints about bus services, but I hope and trust that they have not reached the point of total immunity. At random, I shall quote three of the many complaints which have reached me in recent days. First:
I should like to complain about the No. 28 bus. Many times I have had to wait up to 50 minutes for a bus. On Friday 16th October I waited 55 minutes in the town centre.


Then I decided to walk, and the bus passed me after I had walked nearly a mile. It was pouring with rain.
That came from a 75-year-old pensioner who for the last 12 years has been an outpatient at the local chest clinic.
Second:
I have a part-time job in the centre of Luton, hours 9 to 3.45. I was leaving home at 8.10 a.m., most mornings not arriving at work till 9.10, 9.15 or 9.30, and some mornings 9.45 a.m. I estimate that travelling with United Counties was costing me £3 a week—£1·20 in bus fares and the rest in lost time through being late. In desperation I gave in my notice, but my boss has now arranged for me to be picked up by car each morning.
Third:
Last evening I arrived at the No. 4 bus stop at 5.20, to catch the bus home. I eventually arrived home at 7.15 p.m. and was forced to take a taxi. The No. 4 bus from Vauxhall Motors which is usually at the stop at 5.20 went by half empty at 5.30 and did not bother to stop. At 6.30 a No. 4 double-decker completely empty went by and did not stop…My elderly sick mother was being looked after by a neighbour, so you can appreciate my dilemma at not getting a bus. I was not prepared for the rain or else I would have walked, a distance of half an hour, so my only alternative was to pay over 50p for a taxi, which I cannot afford every evening.
I do not wish to bore the House with a catalogue of complaints, but I assure the Minister that the complaints are innumerable and come from every part of the town and every bus route.
The people affected are not a small minority of the population. Forty-six per cent. of the people of Luton are wholly reliant on public transport, and some 80 per cent. are partially dependent. Moreover, as in every town, it is the poorer sections of the community, those who cannot afford cars, who suffer most. Luton may be a car making town, and it may be a relatively affluent town, but there is no free issue of cars at the end of the final assembly track at Vauxhall Motors.
Also, as in every town, the older inhabitants are among the chief sufferers. A letter from the secretary of the Luton Old People's Welfare Committee puts the point well:
Our own organisation, dealing continuously with such a large number of the town's elderly folk, has for a long time been greatly concerned with the effects that waiting for buses for an hour or more at a time has on these people. The very devastating effect on health alone is appalling, and a great many of the old

folk are being forced to stay at home, thus often having to forgo what little social life they can get, and indeed are entitled to.
Many have been rehoused, as you know, with the changing times, often to the extreme outskirts through so many districts in the old areas being demolished. This of course is progress as we know it today, but we cannot help but realise how difficult it is for many of them, who now have much longer distances to go, even for their everyday needs. Concessions are admirable and many elderly folk are very happy about them, but at the same time what use are they if they cannot be taken advantage of owing to non-existent bus services?
It is not only in football that Luton is at the bottom of the league.
In reply to the complaints that the populace of Luton continually makes about appalling bus services, three things are offered: excuses, passing the buck and the promise of jam tomorrow. The excuses are one variant or another of "We have not got the buses", "We have not got the parts" or "We have not got the crews." I call them excuses not because genuine problems do not exist. They do, but problems must be faced and overcome.
There is no shortage of ideas, and good ideas, among the people of Luton and the trade unions representing the work force about how, within the limits imposed, a better service could be provided. But the point is, who listens and who will accept responsibility? The management blames the suppliers for the lack of buses and the Department for the lack of money. The Department says that problems must be met at a local level. And so the merry-go-round goes on, so the buck is passed.
Meanwhile the people of Luton are the sufferers. They want action, not excuses. They want someone to be prepared to accept responsibility. To the suppliers of buses they say "For goodness sake sort yourselves out and get the buses built, and get the spares to go with them." To the Department they say" Where is the sense in cutting expenditure on buses at precisely the moment when we are facing a severe fuel crisis? Surely it is now that we should be encouraging the development of public transport as a fuel-saving measure instead of cutting back." Yet we hear that the effect of cutbacks on fleet intakes on the United Counties Omnibus Company is that its 1975 intake will be only 36 instead of 50 buses, not to mention that it is still waiting for eight


vehicles from its 1973 intake and 41 from its 1974 intake.
To the management of the United Counties Omnibus Company the people of Luton say that to overcome difficulties is what they are paid for. What, for example, is the sense in building an extension, as it is doing at present, to the Castle Street bus garage to improve maintenance facilities but making no arrangements to avoid an even greater deterioration in the service while the extension is being built? Why should not the ever-ailing Court Line fleet be taken over by United Counties, thus guaranteeing the routes served by Court Line and, incidentally, providing more maintenance facilities?
As regards shortage of staff, if we are to have the public services that we need we must be prepared to pay a decent rate for the job and respect the legitimate demands of the workers in the bus industry for reasonable hours and conditions of work.
In reply to a letter I wrote earlier this year to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport, he wrote on 7th August:
At the end of the day the remedial action must be for the bus operators, their employees, the local authorities, local employers and the travelling public—all at local level.
Consideration of these local factors and on the means by which the needs for public transport are to be met is the responsibility of the new county authorities, under Section 203 of the Local Government Act 1972. This requires them:
acting in consultation with persons providing bus services within the county…to develop policies which will promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public transport to meet the needs of the county'.
As you will know, under the new arrangements for Central Government assistance to local authorities for expenditure on transport, county councils have to produce each year a statement of their transport policies and programmes (TPPs) and it would be entirely appropriate for the county council to consider how best to associate all the relevant local interests in an examination of the provision of public transport in Luton as part of the process of developing their TPP.
The Bedfordshire County Council has taken its duty under Section 203 of the Local Government Act very seriously. A detailed and comprehensive report on public transport in Bedfordshire has been prepared for it by Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, and a plan for the develop

ment of public transport in the Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis area has been produced. Meetings have been held with the United Counties management, and many good suggestions have been put forward. But in the end a
co-ordinated and efficient system of public transport to meet the needs of the county
cannot be developed unless the authority that makes the plans has the power to carry them out. In short, Section 203 confers power without teeth. We shall never have good local public transport in Luton or anywhere else unless it is controlled locally and accountable locally.
In his letter which I have just quoted, my right hon. Friend said, in response to a call made at a public meeting organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) and myself, that he was advised that he did not have the statutory power to hold a public inquiry. However, I respectfully suggest that he has statutory power under Section 9 of the Transport Act 1968 to do something far more important. The section provides:
If in the case of any area in Great Britain outside Greater London the Minister considers it expedient for the purpose of securing the provision of a properly integrated and efficient system of public passenger transport to meet the needs of that area, then, subject to subsection (2) of this section, the Minister may by order designate that area for the purposes of this Part of this Act by such name as may be specified in the order and shall by that order provide for the establishment of the following bodies for that area, namely—
(a) a Passenger Transport Authority
with
(i) persons appointed by local authorities whose areas fall wholly or partly within the area designated by the order
and
(ii) persons appointed by the Minister;
(b) a Passenger Transport Executive",
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider seriously the possibility of designating Bedfordshire as just such a passenger transport authority with its passenger transport executive. If that were done, the problems would not disappear overnight. Of course they would not, but there would be a far greater chance that they would be overcome. A locally-owned and operated serice would be far more directly accountable to the people


who are served, and far more sensitive to their needs.
A nationally-owned and operated service makes sense where national routes are concerned. It makes little sense where local routes are concerned. I plead for a better, more accountable, more democratic form of public ownership. I suggest that as the people of Luton are agreed on the deplorable state of the present bus services, so they would agree to a large extent on the need for local ownership and control.
Finally, I say two things to my hon. Friend the Minister. First, we need more, not less, investment in public transport. Secondly, to use the word in the 1968 Act, it is "expedient" for the Minister to act in respect of public transport in Luton, for I and 168,000 others can assure him that the present system is as inefficient as it could be.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I understand that the Minister has agreed to two other brief interventions in the quarter of an hour remaining.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Parliament is privileged tonight, because the eyes of Luton are upon it. The public transport system is in total disarray, and the people are in despair. Daily they hear about the problems put in the way of United Counties. They hear about the Tory public expenditure cuts of 1973, about the shoddy buses sold off to them by the last Tory Government, and about the obstacles placed in the way of the bus company by the county council, the Luton District Council, local industry, the squeeze, British Leyland and Vauxhall.
But only a couple of months ago, in the peace and tranquility of my home, all the management of the United Counties Omnibus Company came along and gave me a glittering array of statistics which showed how much the position was improving. I can remember that they said that the great maintenance problem was about to come to an end because at last they had found a man to organise the maintenance. I thought to myself that it was strange that a bus company that had been running for years had only just decided to find the right man to organise the maintenance. But the service did not get better.
In the last couple of months it has gone from bad to worse and now we are told that one of the problems is maintenance. One of the reasons given is that there is redevelopment of the bus station at one of the sites in Castle Street. It seems extraordinary that the management could not have foreseen that the redevelopment would require some space for the people carrying it out. It seems that it is not the function of management to provide itself with a tear bowl and allow those tears to drip in, letting the public feel sorry for it. The management should not merely feel sorry for the public; it should be acting on their behalf.
I am sure that there is general agreement in Luton that there are serious failures of management in United Counties. There is failure of management in London, Northampton and Luton. That assertion does not come from me, but from the drivers, conductors, inspectors, trade unionists, leading councillors, and from the public. Spare a thought for the public. I represent that constituency which is on the borders of Luton. I think of the roll-call of names. Every night when I go home there is another telephone call. "Will you please answer this call relating to the bus service?" I am asked.
I think of Mrs. Ralph, Mrs. Marshall, Miss May, Mrs. Reinsford, the telephonists at the Post Office, the child who collapsed at the bus stop, the man who did the same, the pensioners who cannot get into town because there is no guarantee that they can get home again. I think of the 50 people I saw on 8th October who were at the bus stop at half past three and were still there at quarter past four, because the bus had not arrived. These people do not want excuses but improvements.
There should be immediate emergency action. That could be done by the provision of extra buses drawn in from other counties under the auspices of the National Bus Company and the United Counties. We have to do something now. I should like to hear the United Counties backing the unions in their request for a £10 pay rise and for better conditions.
I accept that the public and the local authority have to play their part. United Counties has a right to expect them to support the public transport proposals of


the county council, to expect them to stand out against future road building which will adversely affect public transport and to challenge the subsidy given to car parking. The company has a right to expect the public and the local authority to challenge the way the Arn-dale Centre in Luton is determining Luton's planning instead of the centre being planned for Luton. They have a right to expect action from the Government over the public expenditure cuts. We have a right to expect management to provide a decent service.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. David Madel: I am grateful to the hon. Members for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) and Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) for allowing me to take a brief part in this debate. There is a definite need for a big improvement in the bus service. Most of Luton's buses start from South Bedfordshire or make their way into it, so we are closely linked. The present road system does not make a public transport system easy to operate. The inevitable traffic jams lead to delays.
One service needing special attention is the No. 6 from Houghton Regis to Luton. Many of my constituents are being caused acute distress because of this service. They need the bus to go to work and to shop. If there is to be control of buses by the county council it is bound to need a measure of subsidy. If we are to have this we have to change the rating system. we cannot have a subsidised bus service in Bedfordshire by putting an extra burden on the existing rating system. The rating system would have to be changed.

11.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I hope that in the few minutes left I can cover some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) whom I congratulate on obtaining an Adjournment debate on the transport problems in his constituency. I cannot say that my hon. Friend is the first Member in the new Parliament to have an Adjournment debate on public transport, but I think the House will agree that he made up for that by the eloquence with which he brought home to us all the frustrations

and miseries experienced by people who, in many cases, are dependent on public transport to get about, to get to school and to lead a full and happy life.
I can assure the House that the Department is not in any way becoming immune to complaints about bus services. I know from earlier correspondence I have seeen that there has been a whole series of public protests, meetings, and petitions about the situation in Luton over the past year.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, bus services in the Borough of Luton are provided almost entirely by the United Counties Omnibus Company which is a subsidiary of the National Bus Company. I must make it clear right at the beginning that the business of running bus services in Luton is a matter of day-to-day management for which United Counties is directly responsible and, ultimately, its parent company the National Bus Company. There is, as I need hardly remind the House, a very clear distinction drawn between the responsibilities of Ministers for a nationalised undertaking and those of that undertaking's own management. I will, of course, ensure that the points made in this debate are drawn to the attention of the Chairman of the National Bus Company.
The picture drawn by my hon. Friend is one which, in different degrees of severity, I am getting from bus operators in many parts of the country, not just one sector or another. There are questions of the availability of spare parts—and this is not an unfamiliar complaint from bus operators of all sorts and sizes up and down the country. There are questions of the delivery of new vehicles, which is unpredictable, with almost all bus operators, including other NBC subsidiaries in other partes of the country clamouring for more.
There are questions of the operating conditions in which the buses are expected to run—the degree of traffic congestion, the extent to which bus priority traffic management measures have been or can be adopted, the parking policies of the local authorities—and there are questions of what can be done locally—such as the staggering of industrial and school hours—to ease the pressures on the bus operator at the peak periods compared


with other times of the day when he may have vehicles and bus crews available for operation but considerably under-used.
But of course the picture in different parts of the country is patchy. And it is clear from what has been said tonight and from correspondence that I have received from my hon. Friends that Luton has had more than its share of these troubles. In Luton, too, I understand there have been some particular difficulties. For one thing, the age profile of the United Counties' vehicle fleet compares unfavourably with that of many other operators. I understand that this in part reflects the make-up of the fleet that United Counties inherited from the former municipal undertaking in Luton when the NBC bought it out in 1970.
Again, the maintenance facilities for United Counties have been badly in need of modernisation. I understand that the National Bus Company has shown its recognition of the problems of United Counties in a number of ways. It has injected cash into the company, but the problems relate also to the level of economic activity in the area, the many other job opportunities and so on. This is always a matter of difficulty.
The points made by my hon. Friend bring out very sharply the task that faces us. Everyone regards public transport as indispensable; and yet, against the competition of the private car and the pressures of mounting costs, made much worse by inflation, there is a tremendous uphill battle ahead if public transport is to play its full and proper rôle. It is no good regarding public transport as something that can be turned on like a tap to cope with whatever needs are not being satisfied by other modes of transport. It has to be seen as part of a total transport and traffic package including bus operators, their employees, the local authorities, local employers, schools and the travelling public. Central Government support for public transport has been made clear through general measures of financial assistance—in particular the full remission of fuel duty and through new bus grant, that is half the capital cost of new buses bought for stage carriage use, namely, the normal kerbside stopping local services with which we are all familiar. This support is running at about £60 million a year at present, but I agree

that it is a general support. It is only in the context of the particular conditions of particular places that one can decide what needs to be done on the ground. This is where the new powers and duties of county authorities concerned in Section 203 of the Local Government Act are so important. Whilst I have no plans for the creation of a passenger transport authority for Bedfordshire, although naturally my right hon. Friend and I are always willing to consider constructive proposals, the powers under Section 203 acquired on 1st April 1974 give the county council the job of developing policies to promote the provision of co-ordinated and efficient systems of public transport and the power to give operators financial support. There may be circumstances in which a good case could be made out for setting up a PTA in a non-metropolitan county, but in general it seems right to expect county councils first to explore fully these powers which I have suggested.
However, it is not simply a question of money. It is a question of the availability of manpower locally both to drive and to maintain the vehicles, and this is not a problem confined to the bus company. As regards vehicles, it has been allocated an above average intake of new vehicles, and we must not forget that there are other subsidiaries with very similar problems which can press very similar arguments to United Counties. In all, this renewal programme affects some 40 per cent. of the company's fleet. Work has now started on the modernisation of the maintenance facilities, although, admittedly, as has been said tonight, this in its turn has added to the problems temporarily because while the work is in progress there is bound to be further disruption of maintenance schedules.
All this will take time to work through. Meanwhile, I come back again with the point that it is essential to have close liaison between the bus operator and the local authorities. It would be unrealistic to expect any magical transformation to take place, but with good will a way should be found building on the new rôle of the local authorities.
My hon. Friend quoted from the letter of 2nd August, which he had received from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport. It is in that context that the future of public transport services in


Luton and, indeed, in the whole of Bedfordshire should be seen. Let me emphasise once again the joint rôle of bus operator and local authority in safeguarding the public transport services which are such a vital part of any coherent local transport policy. I understand that these

contacts are being built up, and that there have already been useful meetings and discussions. I hope that it will be possible to build on what I hope is a good start.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Twelve o'clock.